THE 



Antislavery Struggle 



TKIUMPH 



METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



By rev. L. C. MATLACK, D.D. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY REV. D. D. WHEDON, D.D. 

\ 



...^ 



:o..J.L^'^KJ 






NEW YORK: 
PHILLIPS & HUNT 

CINCINNATI: 
WALDEN cSr STOWE. 

l8Sl. 



'7N 



■Ms. 



Copyrii^ht, iS8i, by 

PHILLIPS & HUNT, 

New York. 



STo tje ii^Blemoru of 

JOHN WESLEY, 

WHO DECLARED "AMERICAN SLAVERY 
THE VILEST THAT EVER SAW THE SUN;" TO 
THE FATHERS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH, WHOSE PRAVER, WITH BISHOP ASBURY, WAS, 
"O LORD, BANISH THE INFERNAL SPIRIT OF SLAVERY FROM THY 
DEAR ZION ; " TO THE ANTISLAVERY HEROES OF OUR CHURCH, WHOSE 
FAITHFUL TESTIMONY AND ZEALOUS ACTION WERE NECESSARY 
TO THE EXTIRPATION OF SLAVERY ; AND, FINALLY, 
TO ALL WHO CHERISH THESE MEMORIES, AND 
NOW HAVE CONFIDED TO THEM THE 
VINDICATION OF ALL RIGHTS 
FOR ALL MEN, IS THIS 
VOLUME DEDI- 
CATED BY 

THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



nP^URUSTG the session of the General Conference 
-^ of the Methodist Episcopal Chnrch, held in 
Baltimore, Md., May, 1876, the following communi- 
cation was placed in my hand, which was the imme- 
diate occasion for writing this volume. The pur- 
pose had not been contemplated. The responsibility 
belongs to those whose words are given below. 

Rev. L. C. Matlack, D.D. : 

Dear Brother: A full and impartial history of the 

antislavery struggle in the Methodist Episcopal Church has 

never been written. We believe that such a work would 

be of great interest and permanent value ; and that you 

have peculiar facilities for writing it. The interest we feel 

in this matter, and our desire that justice may be done to 

the Abolitionists of our Church, prompt us to express the 

hope that you may be able to prepare such a work at an 

early day. 

R. M. Hatfield, 

R. S. Rust, 

William Rice, 

Gilbert Haven, 

Daniel Curry, 

C. H. Fowler, 

Thomas W. Price. 

General Conference Eoom, i 

Baltimore, Md., May 23, 1876. ) 



6 Preface. 

After a few days' deliberation upon the matter, 
I replied, consenting to undertake the task thus 
assigned to me. The duties of the pastorate and 
the preparation for pulpit services have allowed 
onl}^ occasional hours of leisure in which to prepare 
the manuscript for the press. Being in no haste, 
and desiring to do justice to the subject — if prac- 
ticable for me at all — it w^as necessary to j)rolong 
the time of its accomplishment. 'Now to my task. 

The subject of slavery has ceased to be an excit- 
ing question. A general agreement has succeeded 
the former dissensions attendant upon its discussion, 
only a few years ago, in both civil and ecclesiastical 
bodies. And this is so, because in America slavery 
has ceased to be a fact. It is now only a memory, 
ke^Dt painfully vivid with its victims by the spirit 
of caste which remains in both Church and State. 

The relations which American slavery sustained 
with the Churches, as w^ell as with the government, 
of the United States, during and preceding the 
century just closed, were so friendly and so con- 
trolling, that the record of it must ever be an essen- 
tial feature of current history. American Church 
history, with no record pertaining to slavery, is 
necessarily incomplete. And to have made no an- 
tislavery history is a positive reproach upon the 
Christian integrity of any Church in the United 
States. 

This is not the case with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Hitherto her history in connection with 



Peeface. Y 

slavery has liad no adequate record. The necessary 
facts lie spread over the pages of numerous vol- 
umes of history, minutes, and periodicals. A single 
volume is needed, which shall contain satisfactory 
answers to the questionings of those who shall follow 
us in the coming years. 

It is not, however, required that all the facts 
from every source should be gathered into one huge 
volume. It is only necessary that these facts 
pass under careful review for classification and gen- 
eralized statement ; and that a narration thereof 
sliould be framed, if possible, which shall be fully 
authenticated, condensed, clear, and sufficiently at- 
tractive to invite and hold attention. 

For such a narrative there is abundant material 
at command. How well it has been combined in 
this work the reader has now an opportunity to 
determine. The scope, or field of observation em- 
braced, covers four periods in the order now indi- 
cated : A preliminary period, anterior to American 
Methodism, when slavery was rooted and grounded 
in our land by the agency of Euroj)ean and Amer- 
ican Christians ; a primary period, during which 
the fathers of Methodism unsparingly denounced 
and prohibited slavery ; the period of toleration, 
in which their sons, however illegally, allowed and 
practiced slavery ; and, finally, the period of extir- 
pation, Vv'hen, for almost thirty years, the grandsons 
of our fathers warred with slavery until a glorious 
victory crowned their efforts. 



8 Preface. 

Tlie many years covered by this history, the am- 
ple record of facts included, the extended discussion 
involved, might have warranted the production of a 
large quarto volume. But a concise statement of 
essential facts in a smaller number of pages, with the 
hope of a larger circulation, was deemed preferable. 

To tell the story of this struggle with slavery, 
which continued during the first century of Amer- 
ican Methodism ; to supplement the history of our' 
Church with a chapter from the antislavery records 
of those times ; and to honor both the heroic defend- 
ers of primitive Methodism and the people who ac- 
cepted so heartily the platform of 17Y4, as laid down 
in " Wesley's Thoughts on Slavery," is the ambition 
of the writer of "The Antislavery Struggle and 
Triumph." 



INTEODUCTION. 



AHISTOKY of tlie relations of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church to the origin, existence, and 
destruction of slavery will generally be considered as 
a required part of our Church literature. It seemed 
quite proper that the writer should be one versed in 
all that might be esteemed wrong in the connection 
of the Church therewith, and yet morally competent 
to treat the whole subject with Christian candor. An 
" original abolitionist," excluded from our ministerial 
orders on account of his persistence, Dr. Matlack had 
about as good a right to complain and reproach us as 
any body, and when he is selected as the historian by 
the Church, a readiness is shown to have the severer 
view fairly presented. All will concede that he nar- 
rates with unflinching explicitness, yet with passion- 
less calmness and candor. He does not find it nec- 
essary, as did an Albert Barnes or a Judge Jay, in 
the heat of the battle, to vituperate the Church 
in order to correct and deter her from wrong ; nor 
like later maligners, after the battle is over, to avail 
himself of the occasion to serve the cause of skepti- 
cism and irreligion. He seeks to present the views of 
both sides fairly ; he shows that antislaveryism arose 
from the religious consciousness of men, that Meth- 
odist antislaveryism in its latest form was the true off- 
spring of her early and permanent record, and that 



10 Introduction. 

Methodism, in spite of many an unhappy concession 
to slavery, has an antislavery history of her own of 
which she may be justly proud. 

But while we cheerfully concede to an "original 
abolitionist" the office of historiographer, it seems 
right (as no one will more cordially concede than him- 
self ) that the counter side should also be allowed to 
state its apology and justification. The writer of this 
Introduction was an original opposer of the Garri- 
sonian movement, and of Mr. Garrison himself. 
Looking back from tlie pedestal of the j)resent to that 
distant period of more than half a century, he 
approves that opposition. Fully appreciating the 
martyr-like heroism of Mr. Garrison and his followers, 
fully acknowledging their royal adherence to their 
views of truth and duty, and never reading their story, 
as usually narrated by themselves, without a very 
ready sympathy, we think now, as we thought then, 
that the wisdom of the movement, in the style in 
which it was conducted, was more than questionable. 
At the start of that movement, while there was a gen- 
eral quietude on the subject of slavery, there was 
little conscious pro-slaveryism l^orth or South. " Slav- 
ery in the abstract," as it was called, was universally 
condemned. Especially with the conscientious Chris- 
tian community, and most especially with Methodism, 
there was underlying all this quietude and quandary 
as to what could be done a protest against its exist- 
ence, and an assumption that it was but temporary. 
When Garrisonism rung out its "fire-bell in the 
night" there were millions unprepared for its ]3eal 
and doubting the certainty of its sounds. The move- 
ment was started by men who had little at stake in 
the existing order of society, and the alarm was felt 



Introductiox. 11 

by the great body of those who had much to lose in a 
coining convulsion. The great aggregate of the 
weighty, wise, and good, stood in the opposition. 
They believed that slavery was a moral and j)olitical 
evil; bnt they also believed that somehow^ it was 
temporary, and that rash measures would both per- 
petuate the evil and produce other evils of incal- 
culable magnitude. But as the battle waxed warm, 
and the slave-power, in self-defense, became bold and 
announced a claim to perpetuity and even supremacy, 
thousands after thousands felt compelled to join the 
antislavery ranks, and to demand, first, the limitation 
of slavery, and finally to claim its immediate extir- 
pation. 

It is of the first importance for us fully to realize 
that the abolition movement was, in fact, an utter 
moral failure. It is a signal, popular illusion that 
original abolitionism was a great, successful moral re- 
form. This error is propagated with much magnil- 
oquence by Mr. Garrison's latest biographer. You 
would think from the ordinary story that slavery was 
abolished by moral suasion, and that essentially by the 
Garrisonian programme. Quite the reverse. All 
Mr. Garrison did was to madden the slave-holders and 
bring on a war. The war might have created a slave 
empire and have perpetuated the system forever. 
The abolition was not a moral achievement but a war 
measure. Had the slave-power stood solid yet calm, 
maintaining its silent position and making no aggres- 
sions, slavery would, to all appearance, be standing at 
this hour, perhaps the stronger for the opposition. 

I^or did the alternative then before the conscien- 
tious inquirer lie between Garrisonism and nothing. 
Before his movement the Colonization Society ex- 



12 Introduction. 

isted, claiming to be, thougli a slow, yet a hopeful 
remedy for slavery. To it, we are told by Mr. G.'s 
biographer, '' every rill of antislavery feeling flowed." 
Organically, indeed, it did not claim to interfere with 
slavery. It assumed that there was no practicable 
hojDe for the elevation of the negro in America. But 
it pointed to his ancestral home in Africa, and main- 
tained that, restored to the land of his fathers, a new 
civilization might there be by him built up, which 
w^ould vindicate the negro character and equalize him 
ultimately with the Caucasian. This would react to 
elevate the negro in America. Meanwhile the society 
proposed to render emancipation easy by furnishing a 
desirable home for the emancij^ated. Government 
aid might give a stupendous magnitude to the move- 
ment. And all the while the agents and friends of 
colonization were able to freely discuss the subject 
throughout the South, interesting the Southern peo- 
ple in plans for emancipation. It was the o^mers of 
the slave who were expected, even by Southerners, to 
surrender the slave by deliberate, peaceful, and ulti- 
mately advantageous process. The vacancies of pop- 
ulation were to be filled up by a Caucasian immigra- 
tion ; and thus, by a happy but slow and conservative 
series of measures, slavery was to fade away, Africa 
be civilized, America be harmonized, and the millen- 
nium be approximated. We freely affirm that we 
were more fascinated by this picture than by any 
product of Mr. Garrison's artistic pencil. And even 
now in the retrospect we prefer the peaceful to the 
bloody way. Could half the expenditure laid out 
upon our late civil war, and half the heroism and self- 
sacrifice on both sides displayed — to say nothing of 
devastations and desolations committed, fierce and 



Intkodcctiox. 13 

diabolic passioDs aroused, and historic scars inflicted 
— have been exerted in colonization and peaceful 
emancipation, we calmly believe that 1950 would 
have found a happier situation of both races and both 
continents than will now be presented. This, how- 
ever, is a problem too vast for human solution. The 
actual result is indeed worth all it cost. It may be that 
the bloody way alone had victory and freedom at its 
end. It is suflicient for our present purpose to make 
clear the fact that there were two sides to the ques- 
tion, before which the Christian, the humanitarian, 
and the Church might well pause ; and that the poet- 
ico - rhetorical denunciations poured by such writers 
as Mr. Oliver Johnson on those whom he calls " the 
leaders of the popular Christianity of the day," are 
written in the interests of semi-infidelity. 

Had Mr. Garrison and his followers manifested a due 
degree of wisdom, these two ways need not have been 
antagonistic. Such, as we learn by the late biography 
of Dr. Channing, was his view. Such certainly was 
the view of the writer of these lines, expressed in an 
address delivered before a colonization society at Mid- 
dletown, July 4, 1834. ^' In brief, the proposition of 
the emancipationist is, to induce the Southerner to 
immediately free his slaves. The proposition of the 
colonizationist is, to offer to all who are freed the 
opportunity and facilities of a spontaneous voluntary 
emigration to the land from which the slave has been 
stolen. 'Now, upon the first flush one is inclined to 
ask. What is there incompatible in these two plans ? 
If the emancipationist has any means of peaceably in- 
ducing the Southerner to manumit the slave, why not 
apply himself to it, and allow the colonizationist, in his 
own sphere, to complete the benefaction by restoring 



14 Introduction. 

every manumited slave, who desires it, to the land of 
his ancestry ? Will the emancipationist reiterate the 
stale objection, that colonization timidly leaves the 
relation of master and slave undisturbed, and so aban- 
dons the poor negro to the cruelty of his oppressor ? 
Then let him apply himself, not to destroy the benefit 
of colonization, but to supply the field of benevolence 
which it leaves untouched. What should we say, 
were the Bible Society to denounce the missionary 
scheme, because it inijjiously supported the plan of 
evangelizing the world by mere fallible men, and left 
the benighted heathen to perish for the want of the 
volume of inspiration? In both cases, each society 
has, and should have, without impeding the other, its 
own sphere of operation." 

It was Mr. Garrison who opened the war between 
the two methods by a public onslaught upon the Col- 
onization Society. "He pronounced the society a 
'conspiracy against human rights;' he asserted that 
' the superstructure of the society rests upon the fol- 
lowing pillars: 1. Persecution; 2. Falsehood; 3. Cow- 
ardice ; 4. Infidelity.' ' If,' said he, ' I do not prove 
the Colonization Society to be a creature without 
brains, eyeless, unnatural, hypocritical, relentless, and 
unjust, let me be covered with confusion of face.' " 
Such is a fair specimen of Mr. Garrison's fervid rhet- 
oric. His spirit breathed an exasperation into the 
whole contest which auspicated strife and bloodshed 
from the beginning. As the plan and purpose of 
colonizationism were comprehensive, enabling it to 
unite in one organic enterprise both [Northerners and 
Southerners, men of various shades of o]3inion, so 
many of the utterances in the sj^eeches and other 
documents of the society were truly objectionable, 



Intboduction. 1 5 

and on these utterances most of Mr. G.'s assaults were 
grounded. The real value of the objective enterprise 
it proposed was never disproved. Yet in the course 
of the contest that society became a rallying point of 
the most violent pro-slavery men, men who cared 
nothing for its real principles, but availed themselves 
of the respectability of its flag to cover their own in- 
human baseness. In the convulsive strifes that ensued 
the way of colonization and peace receded to the back- 
ground, and was forgotten. Keluctantly, yet surely, 
both sides were marching to the final arbitrament of 
the sword. The refusal of the Churches to put them- 
selv^es under the dubious leadership of Mr. G., happily 
retarded this arbitrament ; and, what is an all-import- 
ant point, retarded the crisis until the North had be- 
come powerful enough to meet it triumphantly. 

About 1834 we put the question to Dr. Wilbur 
risk, who had resided in the South : " Suppose the 
entire ministry and Churches and 2>eople of the ISTorth 
had at once become Garrisonian with perfect unanim- 
ity, what would have been the result ? " He promptly 
replied in substance : " The result would be that the 
South would be equally unanimous on the other side ; 
war would ensue and an independent slave empire 
would be established." We could hardly believe it. 
But we think from our now past experience our every 
reader will respond that Dr. Fisk foretold the " Solid 
South." Had the vjhole North in 1834 hecome Gar- 
risonian^ a Southern slave nation would now he onr 
neighhor at the South. For at that time the South 
was far nearer equality in fighting power with the 
North, and could easily, at any rate, have defended 
herself and maintained her own territory. The re- 
fusal, therefore, of the Churches to hear Mr. Garrison 



16 Introduction. 

in tnitli prevented the perpetuity of slavery in its 
worst form, and so postponed the conflict that slavery 
was finally destroyed. ISTay, we can put a stronger 
case. Whatever the Churches may have done, the 
Democratic party, true to its historical instincts, would 
have solidly united with the Solid South. It has 
been often said by our Abolition friends that " if the 
ministers would only come right all would come 
right." It is a most idiotic proposition. The Demo- 
cratic party has ever gloried in not being priest-gov- 
erned ; and its antagonism against a solid antislavery 
clergy would have been as violent as solid. In the 
consequent war there then would have been a Solid 
South against a divided North. In the contest of 
arms the South would have conquered. The limita- 
tions of slavery would have been abolished, and Boston 
would have been as completely under the slave-power 
as Charleston. 

Alarmed at the progress and infuriated by the 
boldness of the Abolitionists, the slave-power became 
menacing and fatally aggressive. To maintain one 
great despotism it became necessary to threaten every 
other liberty ^N'orth and South, and it grew gradually 
evident that the rights, not only of the southern slave 
but of the northern freeman, were at stake. As this 
grew clear the ranks of antislaveryism grew thicker 
and stronger. Our General Conference of 1844 dis- 
closed to us the fact that complete surrender was de- 
manded by the South. All barriers were to be broken 
down and slavery was to become perpetual and su- 
preme. Old opponents of "abolitionism," (like the 
writer of these lines,) who were nevertheless oppo- 
nents of slavery, in increasing numbers took their 
stand ; at first in favor of limiting its territory, and 



Introduction. 17 

finally for driving it out of existence, at whatever 
cost. 

From these views it w^ill be seen that while w^e 
accord all praise to the original Abolitionists in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, we award quite as much 
praise to those who at first manfully opposed the 
early movement. Mr. Garrison's admirers largely 
expatiate on the supposed fact that no clergyman 
would ofiiciate at the first meeting of the Abolitionists 
in Boston ; and we have elsewhere declared, and here 
repeat the declaration, that we would have refused 
so to ofiiciate, and would now indorse that refusal. 
Xot only did the Christian ministry show a proper 
self-respect in declining such a leadership, but their 
reserve delayed the contest Vv'hich the movement 
would have precipitated until the IN^orth was powerful 
enough to secure the victory of freedom. 

The relations and dealings of the Protestant Churches 
with slavery would be very likely to depend very 
much upon the strength of their organic connection 
with the South. The Congregational and Unitarian 
communions being Northern only, could readily with- 
out fracture become antislavery. The Episcopal 
Church, on the other hand, was practically indifferent 
to the existence of the oppressive system. While 
Dr. Matlack well shows that in spite of every conces- 
sion made to slavery, the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
the most massily organic Protestant Church in Amer- 
ica, has the most pronounced record of all. From 
the very earliest period she had been avowedly hostile 
to the existence of slavery. Her disciplinary declara- 
tions, though modified and minified, ever remained, 
pronouncing slavery a great " evil " destined to " ex- 
tirpation," placing a ban upon the ministerial slave- 



18 Introduction. 

holder, and denouncing the " buying and selling " as 
a mortal sin, were never removed until emancipation 
evacuated their signihcance. Kor were they a dead 
letter. The argument of freedom in 1844 was based 
upon our old and permanent antislavery platform. 
And Dr. Matlack and other original Methodi^^t Abo- 
litionists, whether remaining in the Church or seced- 
ing from it, grounded themselves upon the old tradi- 
tions and entire history of the Church. Underlying 
all the yieldings to the slave-power during the con- 
cessive period, there was a powerful protest that for- 
bade us to concede the right or the perpetuity of 
slavery. And that protest, though often overridden, 
w^as never dead or powerless. 

It is easy for the present generation to condemn 
without jury the good and holy men who made those 
concessions. The leaders of Methodism truly believed 
they were securing all the good possible without in- 
curring an overbalancing evil. They had quadren- 
nially met their southern brethren in General Con- 
ference discussion, and believed they most truly 
understood both sides of the subject, and had made a 
platform on which alone the Church could rest with- 
out danger to both the unity of the Church and the 
peace of the country. On that platform the South 
conceded that slavery was " evil " and destined to 
" extirpation," and the North was to wait some peace- 
ful method by which, under a gracious Providence 
and the law of humanitarian progress, the "evil" 
should disappear. Neither side defended slavery as 
right or to be perpetual. The authorities of north- 
ern Methodism, including the General Conference 
men, the episcopacy, and the press, were, therefore, 
unanimous for a common concurrence on the agreed 



Introduction. 1 

platform. The old antislaveiy doctrine was to be 
retained, but the new " modern abolitionism," as it 
was called, was to be rejected. We believe that all 
this was justifiable so long as the agreement remained 
that slavery was to be .temporary, and so long as the 
churchly authorities confined themselves to the use 
of only persuasions. But when they concurred so 
far with the anti-abolition violences of the hour as to 
withhold ordination and inflict ministerial suspension v^ 
upon ministerial Abolitionists, their course was des- 
potic and auicidal. The arraignments of the Aboli- 
tionists before the Conference clothed them Avith the 
sacredness of martyrdom, and awakened misgivings, 
spoken and unspoken, that this crushing of the free- 
dom of speech was a very serious concession to such 
a system as American slavery. Every such move- 
ment was a generator of new abolitionism. 

But to enter more fully into the consciousness of 
these venerated men we must realize the advance- 
ment of the slave-power produced by the cotton 
monopoly. That singular potentate, the cotton- 
power, began to fancy itself holding the world at its 
feet. It had growing visions of a great southern slave 
empire, chivalrous, aristocratic, and warlike, which ^ 
could in time show to the world a right royal history. 
It was growing to hold the bonds of " the Union " as 
of far less value than the fetters of slavedom. It was 
beginning to feel that only so long as it could rule the 
Union was it worth while to be in the Union. Hence 
it could menace the ^N^orth in the lordliest tone, and 
impose conditions of the most despotic nature. But 
with the I^orth the dissolution of the Union was 
viewed as a national death. It was the breaking up 
of old liistoric ties. Patriotism, politics, commerce, 



20 Introduction. 

social influence, cliurclily ties, all united in condemn- 
ing not tlie menacing slave-j^ower bnt tlie J^ortliern 
resistant to its despotism. The lamb and not the wolf 
was guilty of the disturbance. It was Urmly held by 
all these various interests that, the man who rebelled 
against the agreed terms of " Union '' and peace was 
a genuine disturber, an enemy of pnblic peace, a de- 
stroyer of the institutions of the country, to be rightly 
and thoronghly silenced. 

Whether the future result was to be perpetnal 
slavery, or even a ^predominant slave-power, or an 
extension of slavery into all the States, a large secu- 
lar majority never troubled itself to inquire. And 
the moralist and religionist now realized that slavery, 
from having been a creeping interloper, had now be- 
come so inwrought into the social and political fabric 
as to require that palliative treatment which we are 
ever obliged to accord to irremediable organic evils. 
It was under this view that ecclesiastical discipline 
was fatally inflicted upon the candidates for orders, to 
the indelible dishonor of our own Church. 

But the slave-power in its madness committed un- 
intentional suicide. It is the peculiar treachery of 
slavery that Avliile it stimulates the pride and war- 
spirit of the slave-holders it weakens their common 
strength for war. Modern war requires those vast 
resoui'ces whicli free industrial enterprise alone creates 
and which slavery excludes from existence. As the 
slave-power grew prouder and madder its strength 
grew unconsciously fainter. Insensible of its weak- 
ness, it ruslied into the battle with fi.erceness and 
bravery ; but the slow, relentless " anaconda " of 
Northern science, resources, and stalwart courage, 
wound around it and crushed it into non-existence. 



Ij^TliODUCTION. 21 

So may the foes of truth, righteousness, progress, and 
freedom, fall ! 

Before the commencement of the war the great 
body of the moral worth, including the ethical and 
the literary classes, with the ministry and member- 
ship of the evangelical Churches, had passed over to 
the antislavery side. Yet, of these, a so-called con- 
servative residuum remained, demanding silence and 
quietude even after it became transparent that the 
policy of silence would soon secure the hxed and final 
perpetuity and supremacy of the slave-power. To 
this class belonged in our Methodist Conferences a 
large share of the old leaders. It became a tight be- 
tween "the young generals and the old generals." 
We are entirely unable so to enter into the conscious- 
ness of these pseudo-conservative men as to under- 
stand what at last they meant. Our impression is 
that such had been their self-commitment that they 
refused to yield from sheer unreasoning- persistence, 
until commencing war enabled them to become anti- 
slavery on patriotic grounds. But it must be con- 
fessed that the large majority of the ante-bellum sec- 
ular North never became antislavery upon principle. 
Down to the eve before the war even tlie Bepublican 
leaders offered securities for the perpetuity of slavery 
as the price of peace. Down to that final moment 
there were the most violent mobs raised against anti- 
slavery men to propitiate the Southern autocracts. 
And be it remembered that through near the whole 
preceding period it required as much moral courage, 
it cost as much ostracism, to become an antislavery 
man as it did the original Abolitionist. The writer of 
these lines has an ample personal experience of this 
sort, and speaks therefore with authority on this point. 



\: 



22 IXTRODUCTIOX. 

The pro-slaveryism of tlie Nortliern secular inajoritv 
lasted far into the war, j^ostpoiiing the emancipation 
act, incurring for us many a defeat, and forfeiting our 
antislaverj prestige with foreign nations, thereby pro- 
longing and endangering the entire success of the 
war. The abolition of slavery thus loses the claim of 
being a great moral reform. The slave-holder nearly 
up to the proclamation of liberty could have pur- 
chased the life of slavery by re-assuming his place in 
the Union, and resuming his dictatorship over the 
whole. Happily for the world he maintained a proud 
efusal. The slave-power, like the fire-girt scorpion, 
died of its own venom. 



CONTENTS, 



Chapter GENESIS. p^^^ 

I. Europe and the American Colonies, 1492-1776 25 

II. Slatery an Outlaw System 34 

III, Wesley and Slavery 40 

IV. Methodism versus Slavery, 1766-1784 47 

V. The Methodist Episcopal Church versus Slavery, 

1784-1800 58 

TOLERATION. 

VI, Slavery Tolerated by the Church, 1800-1824 66 

VII, Abolitionism — English and American 7i> 

VIII. Antislavery Agitation, 1835, 1836 85 

STRUGGLE. 

IX, Conference Action on Slavery, 1836-1840 100 

X. Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-1840 109 

XI. The Controversy Reviewed 121 

XII Persecutions — Progress — Pastoral Letter of 1840.. 129 

XIII. Antislavery Secession, 1842, 1843 138 

AWAKENING. 

XIV, Antislavery Awakening, 1840-1843 146 

XV. The Great Crisis, 1844 155 

ANTAGONISM, 

XVI. The Southern Secession, 1844, 1845 173 

XVII, The Border Conferences, 1845-1847 182 

XVIII. The General Conference of 1848 ISO 

XIX. Correlated Antislavery Action IPS 

XX. The General Conference of 1852 209 

XXI. Is All Slave-holding Sinful ? 217 



24 Contents. 

Chaptek ^«E victory. p^^^ 

XXII. TriK Gknkral Conference of 1856 227 

XXIII. Debate on Slavery — Continued 247 

XXIV. Debate on Slavery — Concluded 267 

XXV. Antislavery Regime 295 

EXTIRPATION. 

XXVI. General Conference of 1860 306 

XXVir. The End— Slavery Vanquished 823 

XXVIII. Trophies of the Triumph 338 

XXIX. A Glance at Other Churches 354 

XXX. Retrospect 363 

Antislavery Bibliography 373 



THE 

ANTISLAVERY STRUGGLE AND TRIUMPH 

IN THE 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



CHAPTEE I. 

EUEOPE AND THE AMEEICAN COLONIES. 1492-1776. 

ALL American institutions, directly or indirectly, 
are of transatlantic origin. This is esj^ecially 
true of slavery. American responsibility does not 
reach back to the beginning of its own " peculiar in- 
stitution." That was born in other lands. 

"• Slavery and the slave-trade antedate the history 
of human society. Every portion of the globe has 
suffered and supported both, except Australasia. The 
Saxon race carried the most repulsive forms of slavery 
into England. There the price of a man was but 
fou]' times the price of an ox. Slaves were exported 
from England to Ireland. ' Early in the twelfth cen- 
tury a national Synod of the Irish decreed the eman- 
cipation of all English slaves in the island. The long 
wars between German and Sclavonic tribes filled 
France with such numbers of Sclavons, that the name 
of that nation became the name of the institution of 
servitude every-where. Rome was a mart where 
Christian slaves were sold to Mohammedan ma«ters." 
-^Bancroft. 

About the time of the discovery of America the 



20 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

moral sentiment of Christian nations abolished the 
traffic in Christian slaYcs. But the traffic of Euro- 
peans in negro slaYcs, which had existed before the 
discover}' of America, became fully established before 
the colonization of the United States. 

The aborigines of America were early made to feel 
the cruelty of European Christians. Even Columbus 
stained his glorious record by enslaving five hundred 
Indians, whom he sent to be publicly sold at Seville. 
And Isabella reserved for herself and Ferdinand a 
fourth part of the slaves which the new kingdoms in 
America might furnish during their life-time. This 
traffic in Indians at the foreign marts continued nearly 
two hundred years. 

These " heathen round about " the early Puritans 
thought were not ill used by being held as slaves. 
The excellent Winthrop enumerates Indian slaves 
among his bequests. And the articles of the first 
New England Confederacy class persons among the 
spoils of war. 

An unexampled benevolence toward the Indians 
whom Spanish cruelty oppressed was awa^kened in 
Las Casas, a Dominican missionary to St. Domingo, 
in 1510. As Bishop of Chiapa, Mexico, in 1544:, he 
refused to administer the sacraments to those of the 
colonists who reduced the Indians to slavery, aad 
drew upon himself the hostility of the planters an.-d 
disapproval of the Church. Opposed to him was one 
Sepulveda, a canon of Salamanco, who published an 
infamous work, justifying oppression, cruelty, and 
murder, even saying it was the duty of the Church 
to " exterminate those who refused to embrace the 
Christian faith." To him they adhered who rejecte 
Las Casas ; and it is alleged that the mortality fol- 



Europe and the American Colonies. 27 

lowing enslavement, and massacres of Indians who 
resisted tlieir oppressors, caused fifteen millions of 
these innocent victims to perish in ten years. This 
must be an exaggeration ; yet the minimum tot;d 
must have been a fearful destruction of human life 
in the Spanish possessions of America. The current 
history of that period attributes the introduction of 
negro slavery to the efforts of Las Casas to alleviate 
thereby the suffering of the Indians. This is on the 
testimony only of one writer of no autliority, Herara 
by name, whose slander, as it is called, has been fully 
refuted by later writers of the first rank. Moreover, 
one historic fact demonstrates the impossibility of its 
being true. Spain had authorized negro slavery in 
America by royal ordinance in 1501 ; this was nine 
years before Las Casas was an ordained ecclesiastic, 
and thirty-four years before he became a resident of 
St. Domingo. Before he died, in 15 G6, the English 
royal family were arranging for a private speculation 
by the introduction of negro' slaves to America. 

Bancroft, the historian, is authority for most of 
the preceding statements, as well as for those which 
follow. He says : " Queen Elizabeth, in 1567, pro- 
tected Sir John Hawkins in an illicit traffic in negro 
slaves, and by contract shared the profit thereof;" 
and she became at once a smuggler and a slave-trader. 
The depravity of morals indicated by this corruption 
of English society had its legitimate sequence in the 
horrible atrocity of this Llawkins, who relates, as a 
specimen of his method, that he set fire to a city of 
huts in Africa, with dry palm-leaf roofs, wdiere dwelt 
eight thousand people, two hundred and fifty of 
whose strong men and women he seized and sold. 
The other thousands were left in nakedness and mis- 



28 Antislavery Struggle axd Triumph. 

erable destitution. The Protestantism of England 
was not unlike the Popery of Spain in its inhu- 
manitj. 

By a strange misapprehension of justice, joined to 
a stranger perversion of religious truth, men of the 
best reputation seemed blinded by their surroundings, 
or by the god of this world, so that they did " call 
evil good, and good evil — put darkness for light, and 
light for darkness — put bitter for sweet, and sweet 
for bitter." Luther, the German reformer, wrote in 
the sixteenth century : " He that says slavery is op- 
posed to Christianity is a liar ! " And Bossuet, the 
great pulpit orator of the French Catholics, joined 
his words with Luther's, the following century, by 
declaring that " the laws of all nations sanction slav- 
ery. To condemn it is to condemn the Holy Ghost." 

Among the colonies of Xorth America during the 
seventeenth century negro slavery had generally ob- 
tained. A Dutch man-of-war brought twent}^ slaves 
to the shore of the James Piver, Virginia, in August 
of 1620. Sir John Yeomans, one of the Carolina 
" landgrave," brought slaves from Barbadoes to South 
Carolina in 1671, the very next year after its organi- 
zation as a province, i^ew York in 166^ had im- 
ported as many Africans for its j3opulation as Virginia, 
although five years later in commencing that com- 
merce, which Stuyvesant used every exertion to pro- 
mote. Tlie Friends, who controlled Pennsylvania in 
1668, held slaves. William Penn sought without 
success to secure the mental and moral culture of 
Pennsylvania slaves, with the rights and happiness 
of domestic life. And he died a slave-holder. 

At the Treaty of Peace at Utrecht, in 1713, be- 
tween Great Britain, France, and Spain, a monopoly 



EUEOPE AND THE AmERICAX CoLONIES. 20 

of the traffic in negro slaves was granted to Qneen 
Anne, who stipnlated to bring to the West Indies one 
hnndred and forty-fonr thonsand within thirty years, 
at $33 33i per head duty. If she brought over " by 
persons whom she shall appoint " more than four 
thousand yearly, the duty would be one half this sum 
for the excess. Thereby her Britannic majesty be- 
came the exclusive slave-trader for the Spanish posses- 
sions in the Gulf of Mexico, on the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans, as well as for the English colonies. 

Slave shij)s from Africa entered nearly every con- 
siderable harbor south of Newport. The slave-trade 
party in England dictated the laws as early as 1695. 
These laws declared the trade " highly beneficial and 
advantageous to the kingdom and the colonies," which 
" ought to be supplied with negroes at reasonable 
rates.^ In 1702 Queen Anne instructed the Governor 
of 'New York "to give due encouragement to the 
Royal African Company of England." 

The Provincial Legislature of Yirginia in 1Y26 
checked this importation by a law taxing the traffic 
heavily, which law the home government had re- 
pealed. Madison, in after years, said : " The British 
Government constantly checked the attempts of Yir- 
ginia to put a stop to this infernal traffic." The bare- 
faced reason for this interference is expressed in a 
statutory provision of 1749, declaring that " the slave- 
trade is very advantageous to Great Britain." Sir 
Horace Wal^Dole is responsible for the statement, in 
1750, that " six and forty thousand of these wretches 
are sold every year to our plantations alone." And 
therefore it was that the Earl of Dartmouth said on 
behalf of the government, "We cannot allow the 
colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a 



30 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

traffic so beneficial to the nation." This pecmiiarj 
benefit is thus summed up by Bancroft : " For the 
century prior to 1776 the number imported by the 
English into the West India and Continental colonies 
we assume to have been nearly three millions, to which 
are to be added a quarter of a million thrown into 
the Atlantic on the passage. The gross returns to 
English merchants for the whole traffic may have 
been not more than fonr hundred millions of dollars. 
This estimate is by far the lowest ever made by any 
inquirer into the statistics of human wickedness." 

The Commonwealth of Georgia, the youngest colo- 
nial enterprise of England, in 1734, two years after 
its organization, forbade the introduction of slaves. 
Said Governor Oglethorpe : " Slavery is against the 
Gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England. 
We refused, as trustees, to make a law j^ermitting 
such a horrid crime." Four years after that a re- 
quest was made to allow slaves to be admitted to 
Georgia, and repeated for years following, but the 
governor, as its civil and military head, persisted in 
denying the colonists the use of negro slaves. The 
trustees in England applauded the decision, although 
many settlers threatened to leave the colony. Thir- 
teen years afterward, in 1751, George Whitefield, 
then resident in Georgia, went to England, and pleaded 
with the trustees of the colony to allow the introduc- 
tion of slaves. Tyerman is authority for the state- 
ment that Mr. Whitefield said : "As to the lawful- 
ness of keeping slaves I have no doubt. What a 
flourishing country might Georgia have been had the 
use of them been permitted years ago. I should 
think myself highly favored if I could purchase a 
good number of them in order to make their lives 



EUKOPE AND THE AMERICAN CoLONIES. 31 

comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up 
their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord." Twenty years afterward he died, owning 
seventy-five slaves in connection with his Orplian 
House plantation in Georgia. For, without repealing 
the law of 1734, the colony had allowed slave-traders 
to sail direct from Africa to Savannah from 1751 
onward, and sell their heathen victims to the liighest 
Christian bidder. A slight resistance was kept up 
for a few years by the Moravians ; but they yielded 
finally to the conviction that African slaves might be 
emj^loyed in a Christian spirit, and that their treat- 
ment in a Christian manner would prove their change 
of country to be a great benefit to them. This con- 
viction was largely promoted by a message from the 
Moravians of Germany, which declared : "If you 
take slaves in faith, with the intent of conducting 
them to Christ, the action will not be a sin, but may 
prove a benediction." An argument, this, wdiich em- 
bodies the entire logic of volumes of after-thought 
and speech uttered during the ensuing century of 
slavery in America. 

The triple alliance of Protestant England with 
Catholic France and Spain in support of the slave- 
trade ; the cupidity and avarice of English merchants, 
fed as they were on a profit of hundreds of millions ; 
the reckless utterances of Luther and Bossuet ; the 
insinuating sophistry of Whitefield and the Mora- 
vians, are so many indices, and sources, as well of the 
ultimate foothold secured in America by this fearful 
European invasion. Add to these exterior forces the 
innate desire for gain, love of ease, and lack of con- 
science on the question of human rights, and it was 
not strange, although unjustifiable, that there was 



32 Antislaveey Stecjggle and Teiumph. 

awakened in the Colonies a similar feeling in favor 
of making haste to be rich by ungodly gains. So 
that the slave-trade and slavery were accepted, and 
in after generations cursed the country and crushed 
millions of Americans of African descent. 

A singular fact, and prophetic as well, stands upon 
the record of a hundred years ago. A voice was up- 
lifted, antagonizing, denying, denouncing, in clear, 
shrill tones, the popular pro-slavery sentiment of the 
times in Europe and America. Hear it : "I strike 
at the root of this complicated villainy. I absolutely 
deny all slave-holding to be consistent with any degree 
of natural justice. Much less is it possible that any 
child of man should ever be born a slave. Liberty 
is the right of every human creature as soon as he 
breathes the vital air, and no human law can deprive 
him of that right." — John Wesley. 

Finally, and fully confirmatory of the fact that the 
slave-trade in America was the creature of European 
speculators, and especially of British royal interfer- 
ence, there is that paragraph in the original draft of 
the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jeffer- 
son, which was omitted because, although true to 
history, it was not palatable to the Southerners w^ho 
loved slavery. It reads thus : 

"The present king of Great Britain has waged 
cruel war against human nature itself; violating its 
most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons 
of a distant people who never offended him ; capti- 
vating and carr^^ing them into slavery in another 
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their trans- 
portation thither. This piratical warfare, the oppro- 
brium of infidel power, is the warfare of the Christian 
king of Great Britain. Determined to keep an open 



Europe and the American Colonies. 33 

market where men should be bought and sold, he has 
prostituted his negative for siipj^ressing every legis- 
lative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable 
commerce." Such is the testimony of Jefferson, and 
such would have been the language of the immortal 
Declaration, but for the corruption of public senti- 
ment already taking sides with the enemies of African 
liberty while clamorous for the freedom of white 
colonists. 
3 



34 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEK 11. 

SLAVERY AN OUTLAW SYSTEM. 

THE assumed legal relation of master and slave 
was a cnnning fabrication. The fact of slavery 
in America was a fearful reality. The law creating 
it cannot be found ; it does not exist. Laws recog- 
nizing the fact exist, but they are always found to 
have been enacted subsequent to the fact. The fact 
of the relation of master and slave is one thing ; the 
legality of that relation is quite another matter. The 
definition by statute of the condition of a slave does 
not constitute the beino^ so described a slave. Behind 
the definition, and behind the recognition, thei'e re- 
mains the bold usurpation of a claim to ownership in 
men, without the shadow or pretext of law antecedent 
thereto which created the right of ownership. As 
slavery did not originate in law, the whole process of 
enslaving men was, and ever has been, illegal from 
beginning to end. What, then, was the origin of 
slavery — the so-called legal relation between master 
and slave as it existed in the United States ? 

The fact is unchallenged, that the claim to owner- 
ship of negroes in America originated in the African 
slave-trade. That trade, by the laws of the United 
States and of Europe, was declared to be piracy. 
How much legality can be given to a pirate's claim ? 
Just that much and no more belonged to the slave- 
buyer. And this gave to John Wesley's words their 
pungency and power when he said, '' All men-buyers 



Slavery aj^ Outlaw System. 35 

are exactly on a level with men-stealers." This is 
equally a judicial and a historic truth. 

'' The legal-relation fiction existed for centuries in 
England, because not tested before the courts until 
1772. Then Granville Sharp brought forward the 
case of James Somerset against his master, Charles 
Stewart, of Yirginia, at the Court of the King's Bench, 
Lord Chief-Justice Mansfield presiding. After la- 
bored argument, and a continuance of the case over 
two terms, the decision was rendered June 22, 1772, 
and the principle established that the wliole process 
and tenure were illegal ; that there was not and never 
had been any legal slavery in England. His words 
were : ' Immemorial usage preserves the memory of 
positive law ; and, in a case so odious as the condition 
of slaves, must be taken strictly. Tracing the subject 
to natural principles, the claim of slavery never can 
be supported ! The power claimed by this return 
never was in use here. We cannot say the cause set 
forth by this return is allowed or approved of by the 
laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be 
discharged ! ' " 

"The laws of this kingdom" extended over the 
Colonies of Great Britain in 1772, and the decision 
of Lord Mansfield covered the case of every slave in 
our land. But there was no Granville Sharp to bring 
their case into court ; and the separation of the Colo- 
nies occurring soon afterward would have prevented 
the application of this decision in America. What 
secret force the interest of slavery gave to the move- 
ments for independence, as a guarantee against uni- 
versal emancipation by judicial decision, if any, can 
now never be known. Less threatening, but equally 
feared, antislavery influences, ninety years afterward, 



36 Antislaveky Struggle axd Triumph. 

were deemed a justification for rebellion and a san- 
guinary war, greatly exceeding in magnitude the 
struggle of 1776. Upon how slight a tenure xlmeri- 
can slavery continued and flourished, until 1863, will 
now be stated from historic and judicial authority. 

Judge Matthews, of Louisiana, (5 Martin's Keport, 
275,) altirms "the absence of any legislative act of the 
European powers for the introduction of slavery into 
their American dominions," adding, "If the record 
of any such act exists we have not been able to find 
any trace of it." lie also declares, "It is an admitted 
principle, that slavery has been permitted and toler- 
ated in all the Colonies established in America by the 
mother country. 'No legislative act of the Colonies 
can be found in relation to it." Let us hear Judge 
Matthews further : " On turning our attention to the 
first settlement of the British Colonies in America 
we find that the introduction of negro slaves into one 
of the most important was accidental, (to Virginia, 
1620.) About twenty years afterward slaves were 
introduced into ISTew England, where Indians were 
then held in bondage. The absence of any act or 
instrument of government under which their slavery 
originated is not a matter of greater surprise than 
that there should have been none found authorizing 
the slavery of the blacks." — "" Ainerican Slave Code^'' 
Goodell, p. 260. 

"Messrs. Sumner and Palfrey have declared that 
slavery never existed by law in Massachusetts. Sum- 
ner's words are : ' If in point of fact the issue of 
slaves was sometimes held in bondage, it was never 
sanctioned by any statute law of Colony or Common- 
wealth.' Palfrey confirms this by the assertion, in 
liis history, that no person was ever born into legal 



Slavery aist Outlaw System. 37 

slavery in Massachusetts. Against these Mr. Moore 
('History of Slavery in Massachusetts') takes issue. 
He j^roves that slavery existed — which they concede 
— and was recognized by courts, but does not cite the 
statute that decreed it. He quotes from the ' Body 
of Liberties,' which declared, ' There never shall be 
any bond-slavery, or villanage, or captivity among us, 
unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, or 
such as shall willingly sell themselves, or are willing- 
ly sold to us.' This recognizes two kinds of slavery 
as allowable — lawful capture, and those who enter it 
voluntarily. These expressly exclude negroes stolen 
from Africa and brought here as merchandise. That 
slavery of negroes crept in under the shadow of the 
captivity of Indians is true, and that this species of 
property was recognized by the courts ; but that it 
had legislative enactments for its support he does not 
show. Statute law never protected nor legalized the 
iniquity." — Dr. Ourry^ Book Notices^ Christian Ad- 
vocate, May 24, 1866. 

" The first introduction of slaves into Georgia was 
in direct violation of law. Into the other colonies 
slaves were introduced a long time before there was 
any colonial enactment authorizing it. When stat- 
utes were enacted they did not j^retend to create or 
originate the relation. They did not define with ex- 
actness who were slaves and wdio were not. They 
only assumed, or took for granted, the existence of 
slave property, and made laws for its security and 
regulation. The consequence was that no slave-holder 
could prove that the particular slaves claimed by him 
were ever made slaves according to law, or that their 
ancestoi's were tlius enslaved. And there were no 
statute laws in either of the States by which it could 



3S Antislavery Stkuggle a^d Tkiumph. 

be legally proved, by the common rules and usages 
of courts as aj^plied to other subjects, that slavery 
legally existed there. This was avowed by Mr. 
Mason, of Yirginia, in the Senate of the United 
States, when the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 was 
pending. He objected to the ' trial by jury,' as pro- 
posed in that bill, that it would bring up the question 
of the legality of slavery in the States, which, said he, 
it would be impossible to prove. Mr. Bayly, of Yir- 
ginia, took the same ground. So Congress struck out 
the jury trial because slave-holders avowed, in 1850, 
their inability to prove the legality of slavery in a 
court of law ! " — ^^ American Slave Code^^ Goodell, 
p. 260. 

Under the fugitive law of 1Y93 a IS'ew York slave- 
holder pursued and claimed a runaway in Vermont. 
Two justices of the peace at Middlebury decided to 
surrender him. The slave's counsel. Loyal Coxe, 
Esq., brought him up to the Supreme Court on a 
writ of habeas corpus, asking his liberation. The 
master brought forth documentary and other evidence 
to show his title to the slave. Judge Harrington 
gave the opinion of the court. He said that the evi- 
dence of the title was good as far as it went, but the 
chain had some of its links broken. The evidence 
did not go far enough. If the master could show 
a bill of sale or grant from the Almighty, then 
his title to him would be complete ; otherwise not. 
And as he had not shown such evidence the court 
refused to surrender the slave, and he was dis- 
charged. 

This transaction was in 1807. It was related by 
Hon. Horatio Seymour, formerly senator from Yer- 
mont for twelve years, who was present at the court. 



Slavery an Outlaw System. 39 

Hon. D. "Wooster, of Middleburj, to whom Mr. Sey- 
mour told the facts, gave them to Hon. S. E. Sewall, 
of Massachusetts, by whom they were published. In 
later years Col. J. P. Miller, of Yermont, often re- 
lated at antislavery conventions that on his return 
from the war for Grecian independence, when in 
Paris, he was delighted to find in a public literary in- 
stitution, among great words from great men, this 
saying, credited to Judge Harrington, of the United 
States of America : " A bill of sale from Almighty 
God is needed to render valid the claim set up to a 
human being as a slave," With these words Judge 
Harrington touched bottom, where Lord Mansfield 
only leveled the ocean of human rights. And Ver- 
mont soil was never after pressed by the steps of the 
hunters of men. A second claim was never set up in 
that State. 



40 Antislavert Struggle akd Triumph. 



CHAPTER III. 

WESLEY AND SLAVERY. 

AMERICAN slavery, not being the legitimate off- 
spring of law, must be accepted as one of a 
class of bastard institutions of evil origin, which de- 
served and had the unqualified condemnation of the 
best men of their times, whose epithets were none 
too strong when most emphatic. 

The opposition of John Wesley to slavery, which 
originated when he was a missionary to the colonies 
of Georgia and South Carolina, in 1736, was closed, 
after fifty-five years' continuance, with his dying ex- 
hortation to Wilberforce, who had just then, 1791, 
offered a resolution in the British Parliament for the 
abolition of slavery in the West India Islands. A 
brief quotation from several of his publications on the 
general subject will demonstrate this opposition. 

" But, waiving for the present all otlier considera- 
tions, I strike at the root of this complicated villainy. 
I absolutely deny all slave-holding to be consistent 
with any degree of natural justice, mercy, and truth. 
No circumstances can make it necessary for a man to 
burst in sunder all the ties of humanity. It can 
never be necessary for a rational being to sink himself 
below a brute. A man can be under no necessity of 
degrading himseK into a wolf. 

" You first acted the villain in making them slaves, 
whether you stole them or bought them. And this 
equally concerns every gentleman that has an estate 



Wesley and Slavery. 41 

in our American plantations ; yea, all slave-holders of 
whatever rank or degree — seeing men-buyers are ex- 
actly on a level with men-stealers. 

" Have yon, has any man living, a right to nse 
another as a slave ? It cannot be, even setting Rev- 
elation aside. Liberty is the right of every human 
creature as soon as he breathes the vital air, and no 
human being can deprive him of that right which he 
derives from the law of nature." — '^Thoughts on Slav- 
ery,^^ Wesley, 1774. 

Thirteen years afterward he wrote to Mr. Thomas 
Funnel : 

" My dear Brother : Whatever assistance I can 
give those generous men who join to oppose that 
execrable trade, I certainly shall give. I have printed 
a large edition of the 'Thoughts on Slavery,' and 
dispersed them to every part of England. But there 
will be vehement opposition made by both slave-mer- 
chants and slave-holders, and they are mighty men ; 
but our comfort is, 'He that dwelleth on high is 
mightier.' I am your affectionate brother, 

"John Wesley." 

Finally, only four days before his death, February 
25, 1791, he wrote to Mr. Wilberforce, saying : 

" Unless the divine power has raised you up to be 
Athanasius against the world, I see not how you can 
go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that 
execrable villainy [the slave-trade] which is the scan- 
dal of religion, of England, and of human nature. 
Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, 
you will be worn out by the opposition of men and 
devils. But if God be for you, who can be against 



42 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

you ? Are all of them together stronger than God ? 
O, be not weary in well doing ! Go on in the name 
of God, and in the power of his might, till eYen 
American slaYery, the Yilest that eYer saw the sun, 
shall Yanish away before it. 

" Your affectionate serYant, 

" John Wesley." 

Mr. Wesley's opposition to the slaYe-trade ante- 
dated the organization for its OYerthrow fifteen years. 
His " Thoughts on SlaYery " were published sixty 
years before the abolition of slaYcry in the West 
Indies, and his rebukes of American slaYerj^ antici- 
pated Lincoln's proclamation three quarters of a cent- 
ury. His influence became a fountain of multij^lied 
forces, and originated a Yast ecclesiastical system in 
Europe and America which had much to do with the 
OYerthrow of slaYery on both sides of the Atlantic. 

His followers in opinion, and his associates in 
labor, were among the most actiYe of those who inau- 
gurated the great conflict. The antislaYery force was 
as the little stone at first cut out of the mountain 
without hands, but it became an OYerwhelming power 
against oppression, and lifted high up in the scale of 
being redeemed millions of the sons of Africa. Less 
than one hundred years had elapsed after the spoken 
thoughts of Wesley on slaYery when all the slaYes of 
eYery island of the sea controlled by Europeans, and 
the millions more held on the American continent, 
w^ere free. 

But the antiquity of the institution of serYitude, 
the European combinations in faYor of establishing 
slaYery in America, the special patronage extended 
over it by the English goYernment, and the ultimate 



Wesley and Slaveky. 43 

selfishness and avarice of the colonists, combined to 
root and ground slavery on the continent, with the 
prospect and hope, to its friends, of universal exten- 
sion and perpetual existence. It was comparatively 
an easy task for the European authorities afterward 
to legislate against slavery, at a distance from the 
home government, on their islands, and abolish 
it. While, to grajople with slavery at our own doors, 
in our own American homes, sanctioned and sanc- 
tiiied by law and religion as it was, and representing 
twelve hundi'ed millions of dollars, as Henry Clay^ 
in 1839, estimated it to be ; to correct the false relig- 
ious sentiment of a nation, to repeal the unjust laws 
of a hundred years, to annihilate their property claim 
in four millions of human beings — involved mount- 
ainous difficulties to be removed, and fierce discus- 
sions to be maintained, through long years of strife, 
which made the task appear an absolute impossibility 
with man. Those who entertained the thought of 
its practicability, and hoped to see the end of slavery 
in America, were deemed visionary enthusiasts, were 
laughed to scorn, and were compelled to rest their 
confidence wholly on the truth that with God all 
things are possible, ^or was this scorning strange 
— this unbelief. Look at the facts. 

The distinctive features of American slavery, after 
it attained to the monstrous enormity of 1850, when 
the climax of " mischief framed by law " was reached 
by the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, may be 
thus portrayed. Slaves were goods and chattels ; 
being property, they could not own property, nor 
make a contract, nor enjoy marital rights, nor pa- 
rental authority, nor be a party to any civil suit what- 
ever. They could not be witnesses against any white 



44 Antislaveky Stkuggle and Triumph. 

person, but were personally subject to the will, and 
were liable to become the helpless victims, of all 
white persons. Their offspring, like mere domestic 
animals, were the property of those who claimed to 
be the owners of the mothers. To teach slaves to 
read or write was made a crime by the law of the 
slave States generally. Emancipation w^as discour- 
aged, obstructed, and prevented in most of these 
States, except by legislative action. And in some 
cases the State constitutions prohibited legislative 
action. All discussion in favor of emancipation, by 
voice or pen or press, was suppressed as incendiary, 
and punished as crime. Free people of color were, 
by the laws of slave States, made liable, upon various 
flimsy pretexts, to be sold into slavery. The Amer- 
ican domestic slave-trade grew to be a commerce in 
"the bodies and souls of men," rivaling in dimen- 
sions and enormities the African piratical slave-trade. 
Dr. Elliott, on " Slavery," (vol. i, p. 47,) well and 
truly said : " As the African slave-trade constantly re- 
duces innocent free persons to slavery, and assumes 
its piratical and felonious character from this act, so 
the system of American slavery, by enslaving the 
children of slaves and free persons of color, and by 
re-enslaving manumitted persons, must also be pirat- 
ical and felonious. And he or she who voluntarily 
enslaves innocent children must rank with the man- 
stealer ! " 

The enormous revenue derived from this com- 
merce, and the influence of this great money-power 
to prevent the earlier success of antislavery men and 
measures, will be appreciated by brief statements 
from Southern sources. Hon. J. M. Kandolph, of 
Yirginia, before the Legislature, in 1832, said : " The 



Wesley axd Slavery. 45 

exportation of slaves from Virginia lias averaged 
8,500 annually for the last twenty years ; " " an ex- 
portation of nearly 260,000 since 1790." The editor 
of the " Virginia Times," Wheeling, said in 1836 : 
*' Intelligent men estimate the nnmber of slaves ex- 
ported from Virginia alone within the last twelve 
months at 120,000, whose average value w^as $600 
each, a total of |T2,000,000. Two thirds of these 
were removed with their masters ; one third were 
sold, leaving behind them $24,000,000 revenne." 
The Katchez, Miss., "Courier" said tliat the States 
of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas im- 
ported 250,000 slaves in 1836. The " Baltimore Amer- 
ican" published from a Mississi23pi paper a report 
adopted by a citizens' meeting, held in Mobile, which 
attributed " the money pressure of 1837 to the fact 
that $10,000,000 had been paid out of the State an- 
nually for slaves since 1833." The New Orleans 
"Courier," of February 5, 1839, declared that "the 
United States law against the African slave-trade put 
millions of dollars into the pockets of the people 
living between Eoanoke and Mason and Dixon's 
line. Yet we think it would require some casuistry 
to show that the present slave-trade is a whit better 
than the one from Africa." 

Added to all this, in the interest of slavery, and 
designed to afford an all-sufficient safeguard and 
guarantee of its perpetual existence in America, was 
the national statute of 1850, approved and signed by 
President Fillmore. The full text of that law need 
not be quoted. Its characteristics can be given in a 
few sentences. It made each claimant of a fugitive 
slave the master of all the Circuit, District, and Ter- 
ritorial Courts, commissioners, marshals, and citizens 



46 Antislaveey Struggle and Teiumph. 

of the United States. The o^oyernment of the nation 
became thereby a gigantic Bi'iarean slave-catcher for 
the South. All American citizens were constituted 
kidnappers. Fines and imprisonment were the pen- 
alty of neglect to perform the work of blood-hounds, 
or for any hinderance to the slave-catcher, or any help 
to the fugitive. All fees and costs for legal serv- 
ices, for subsistence of runaway slaves, for hunting, 
catching, and holding them ; for defense against res- 
cue, and for transportation over the entire continent 
if necessary — that without any limitation of the ex- 
pense — were provided for to be paid out of the Treas- 
ury of the United States.'-^ 

Such was the system of slavery in our nation when 
its enormity culminated. It had been growing for 
generations, all the while condemned by many good 
men, and hated of God. But good men were too 
few and feeble, and God was slow to anger and of 
great mercy, and his wrath delayed its manifestation. 

Having anticipated somewhat in order to complete 
the monstrous portrait and fully set forth the system 
against which AYesleyan Methodism arrayed itself at 
the first, and afterward sought to extirpate, it is nec- 
essary to turn back to the point of divergence and 
resume the direct narration at the period when 
American Methodist history commenced. 

* " The South had no right to claim that the policy of the Union 
should be established in sole reference to the condition of the blacks ; 
in other words, that the whole country should become the slave of 
slay esV' — Prentice's Life of Henry Clay, 1819, p. 187. Yet, in 
1850, he advocated and secured the adoption of this policy. 



Methodism veesus Slavery, 1766-1784. 47 



CHAPTEE TV. 



WESLEYA^N" Methodism became an American 
institution by the emigration of its votaries to 
this country. Societies were formed in Xew York 
and Maryland about 1762 or 1766. The former is 
the date assigned by some to the organization of a 
Society in Maryland by Kobert Strawbi'idge. The 
latter is the year of the organization of the Society 
in Isew York by Philip Embnry, and is usually ac- 
cepted as the beginning of Methodism in America. 
The first general movement which constituted Meth- 
odism a religions denomination was the meeting of 
the Conference at Philadelphia, in 1773, which was 
attended by Francis Asbnry and nine other English 
preachers, acting under John Wesley's authority. 

There was no action at this Conference on the sub- 
ject of slavery. The subsequent utterances of the 
preachers only indicate their sentiments ; and they 
were boldly expressed under the deepest convictions 
of duty. 

Freeborn Garrettson, a native of Maryland, the 
companion of Asbury, thus writes of his personal ex- 
perience the day after his conversion, in 1775 : " It was 
the Lord's day. I continued reading the Bible till 
eight, and then called the family together for prayer. 
As I stood with a book in my hand, in the act of giv- 
ing out a hymn, this thought powerfully struck my 
mind, ' It is not right for you to keep your fellov>r- 



48 Antisl AVERY Steuggle and Tkiumph. 

creatures in bondage. You must let the oppressed go 
free.' Until then I had never suspected that the 
practice of slave-keeping was wrong. I had not read 
a book on the subject, nor been told so by any, I 
paused a minute, and then replied, 'Lord, the op- 
pressed shall go free ; ' and I w^as as clear of them in 
my mind as if I had never owaied one. I told them 
they did not belong to me, and that I did not desire 
their services without making them a compensation. 
I was now at liberty to proceed in worship. After 
singing, I kneeled to pray. Had I the tongue of an 
angel I could not fully describe what I felt. A 
\^ divine sweetness ran through my whole frame. It 
was God, and not man, that taught me the impro- 
priety of holding slaves, aiid I shall never be able to 
praise him enough for it. My very heart has bled 
since that for slave-holders, especially those who make 
a profession of religion, for I believe it to be a crying 
sin." — Dr. iT. Bangs'^ *' Life of Garrettson.^^ 

The following year he commenced a ministerial 
career which extended over more than half a century, 
and has left historical and ineffaceable traces on the 
Church from N^orth Carolina to Kova Scotia. " He 
failed not to inculcate his opinions of slavery, and 
preached often to the slaves, weeping with them in 
their wTongs, rejoicing with them in their spiritual 
consolations. He was menaced by persecutors, threat- 
ened by armed men, and one of his friends was shot 
for entertaining him. ' But,' he says, ' the consolations 
afforded were ample compensation for all the diffi- 
culties I met with wandering up and down.'" — 
Stevens' '•'History of Methodist Episcopal CliurcJiP 
Francis Asbury's Journals exhibit his methods and 
manner of antagonizing slavery, at the times indi- 



Mi:tjio:;i^m veusus Slavkky, 176()-1784. 4:9 

cated by the dates affixed to each j^aragrapli follow- 
ing. [1770.] "After preaching I met the class and 
then the black people, some of whose unhappy mas- 
ters forbid their coniing for religious instruction. 
How will tlie sons of oppression ansvv^er for their 
conduct when the great Proprietor of all shall call 
them to account ? [17S0.] Spoke to some select friends 
about slave-keeping, but thej could not beai* it. Tliis 
T know : God will plead the cause of the oppressed, 
though it gives oifense to say so here. Lord, ban- 
ish the infernal spirit of slavery from thy dear Zion ! 
Lord, help thy people. The Lord will certainly hear 
the cries of the oppressed, naked, starving creatures. 
O my God, think on this land ! [1783.] We all agreed 
at the Virginia Conference in the spirit of African 
liberty, and strong testimonies were borne in its favor 
at our love-feast. I pity the poor slaves. O that God 
would look down in mercy and take their cause in 
hand ! [1785.] At the Conference in Yirginia I found 
the minds of the people greatly agitated with our 
rules against slavery, and a proposed petition to the 
(Tcneral Assembly for the emancipation of the blacks. 
y^e w^aited on General Washington, who received us 
very politely, and gave us his opinion against slavery. 
[1788.] Other persuasions are less supine, and their min- 
isters boldly preach against the freedom of the slaves. 
Our Brother Everett, with no less zeal and boldness, 
cries aloud for liberty and emancipation. [1798.] My 
mind is much pained. I am brought to conclude that 
slavery will exist in Yirginia perhaps for ages. There 
is not a sufficient sense of religion nor liberty to de- 
stroy it. On Saturday I had a close conversation with 
some of our local ministry. AYe were happy to lind 
that seven out of ten were not in the spirit or prac- 
4 



i^ 



50 Aftislayery Struggle axd Triumph. 

tice of slavery. I assisted Philip Sands to draw up 
an agreement for our officiary to sign against slavery. 
Thns we may know the real sentiments of our local 
preachers. We can never fully reform the people 
until we reform the preachers. Hitlierto, except 
purging the traveling connection, we have been work- 
ing at the wrong end. But if it be lawful for local 
preachers to hold slaves, then it is lawful for travel- 
ing preachers also, and they may keep plantations and 
overseers upon their quarters ; but this reproach of 
inconsistency must be rolled away. [1801.] In South 
Carolina a Solomon Reeves let me know that he had 
seen the address signed by me, and he was quite con- 
fident that there were no arguments to j^rove that 
slavery was repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel. 
What absurdities will not men defend ! If the Gos- 
pel will tolerate slavery, what will it not authorize ? 
I am strangely mistaken if this said Mr. Reeves 
has more grace than is necessary, or more of Solomon 
than the name." 

The names of Everett, O'Kelly, Rankin, and oth- 
ers who are incidentally named by Bishop Asbury, 
are only specimens of the entire class of Methodist 
preachers of the first generation who were a unit 
against slavery, which they denounced publicly with 
iinsjDaring severity of language every-where. But 
they were struggling with fearful odds against them. 
Public sentiment generally upheld slavery. Private 
interest, social standing, personal comfort, were all 
sacrificed by the early converts to Methodism at the 
South, who felt conscience-bound to emancipate their 
slaves. And therefore their increase was very slow. 
The temptation was strong to relax their vigorous on- 
set upon slavery, for peace' sake, and the prosperity 



Methodism versus Slaveky, 1T6G-1784. 51 

promised thereby. How utterly this failed to affect 
Mr. Asbnry we have noted already. This is e(}ually 
true of otliers, and especially of his honored associate 
in the episcopacy, of whom sj^ecial mention must be 
made. 

Dr. Coke, who had been associated with Mr. Wes- 
ley in England seven years, was, in 1784, set apart 
for tlie office of Superintendent over the Methodists 
in America, and became the associate of Mr. Asbury 
from 1785 onward. Before his arrival, for several 
y^ears successively, the Conferences in the United States 
had considered and condenmed slavery in plain, strong 
words, and had adopted prohibitory laws against it. 
With this legislation the doctor was in hearty sym- 
pathy. Besides, he added an open hostility to slavery, 
in private intercourse and public denunciation, after 
being in the country a few months. "While Dr. 
Coke preserved a profound silence on the subject of 
negro slavery all were pleased, and he was permitted 
to go on his way in peace. But no sooner did he lift 
UT3 his voice against the injustice of the trathc than it 
became the signal for the commencement of hostili- 
ties against him. In the province of Yirginia, while 
preaching in a barn, on Sunday, April 9, 1785, he 
took occasion to introduce the subject of slavery, and 
expatiated on its injustice in terms tliat were not cal- 
culated to flatter his auditors. Many were provoked 
to hear those truths which, from their earliest infan- 
cy, they had been taught to stifle, and which their 
interest still instructed them to conceal. A small 
party withdrew from the house, and combined to offer 
him personal violence as soon as he came out. They 
were stimulated by a lady who informed the enraged 
mob that she would give them £50 sterling if they 



52 AXTISLAYERY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

"wonld seize the doctor and give him a hundred laslies. 
This thej would have done but for the vigorous action 
of a magistrate present, who arrested one of the lead- 
ers, and the threats of a colonel to repel force by 
force. The fruit of this sermon was, that the magis- 
trate referred to emancipated fifteen slaves. Another 
master freed eight slaves, and another one slave. To 
this private and public action personally against sla- 
very the doctor added his official influence as presi- 
dent of Annual Conferences. At the Conference of 
North Carolina, in which State emancipation was pro- 
hibited, he prepared a petition to the Assembly pray- 
ing them to pass an act 'that in a land which boasted 
of its independence slave-holders should at least be 
allowed to emancipate their slaves.' This was signed 
by the Conference. Sanguine liopes were entertained 
of success for a time, as the governor had signified to 
Bishop Asbury his apj^robation. At the Virginia 
Conference, also, a petition was drawn up praying 
the Legislature to pass an act for the immediate or 
gradual emancipation of the slaves, a copy of which 
was given to each preacher to present to his circuit 
for sisrnatures. This was a measure the doctor suo^- 
gested, and it was approved by many prominent men 
in the State, who entertained sanguine hopes of its 
success." — Drew'' 8 ^^Life of CoJceP The antislavery 
action tlius inaugurated, which was directed against 
the system as it w^as sustained by the State, was not 
more vigorous and persistent than the antislavery 
measures adopted, designed to banish all slave-holding 
from the Metliodist Episcopal Church, prior to 1800. 
AVlien the first Conference was held in 1773, and 
for a few years following, there was no rule forbid- 
ding slavery, any more than there was a Church law 



Methodism vkk.sus Slaveky, 1766-1784. 53 

against theft, or adultery, or murder. It seems not 
to have entered into the thought of these English 
Weslejan preachers. They denounced that and every 
other sin, as they did gambling and drunkenness, in 
their public ministrations. But to legislate against 
slave-holders in the Church, or for the regulation or 
removal of slavery, was never any part of Conference 
action until seven years afterward — in 1780. The 
reason of that reticence at first, and the subsequent 
outspoken action, may be found in the history of the 
times, to which we give brief attention. 

"The year after the introduction of Methodism, by 
conference organization in this country, the friendly 
relations between Great Britain and the Colonies 
were disturbed, and finally destroyed by the war of 
1776 for the space of seven years. In 1778 all the 
English preachers had returned except Mr. Asbury, 
and he was confined mostly to the small State of Del- 
avv^are. The advice and control of the older preach- 
ers were almost entirely lost to the rising Societies. 
The extension of the cause and the founding of new 
Societies were committed to young and inexperienced 
men, most of whom had been as yet taught the way 
of the Lord but very imperfectly, and who had them- 
selves been born and educated in slave-holding com- 
munities. Eor in this great revival of religion some 
preachers, almost immediately on their conversion, 
were sent, not only to preach, but to found Churches, 
receive members, and administer discipline. Most of 
these young preachers, with Freeborn Garrettson, 
were raised in the midst of slavery, and, with him, 
could say they had never read a book upon the sub- 
ject, nor had been told that it was wrong by any 
body. 



54 Antislaveey Stkuggle axd Tkiumph. 

" The forty-eight preachers who were received into 
the itinerancy during the war belonged ahnost exchi- 
sively to this class. All the Conferences which were 
held from 17Y6 to 1787 were held within the limits 
of the recent slave-holding States. So entirely was 
Methodism confined to that section that from 1777 
to 1783 there was not one appointment of a preacher 
north of some parts of I^ew Jersey. [Of a member- 
ship of 8,504: reported in 1780, only about four hun- 
dred resided in what were called the free States.] 
And very many of their preachers, thus imperfectly 
taught, and always accustomed to slavery, had not, 
for years, the advice or supervision of Mr. Asbury. 

"In 1779, mainly on account of desiring the ad- 
ministration of the ordinances, the more Southern 
preachers, amounting to more than one half of the 
entire body, seceded, holding a separate Conference in 
Fluvanna, Virginia, while Mr. Asbury held one, con- 
sisting of only seventeen preachers, in Kent County, 
Delaware. Each passed its own resolutions, stationed 
its owm preachers, and exercised discipline over their 
respective Societies for that year. And even after the 
reconciliation, the administration of Mr. Asbury w^as 
received by the Virginia preachers wdth much caution. 
In view of all these transactions, there are very few 
historical facts so well attested as this : That slavery 
found its way into the American Societies during the 
confusion of the Revolution, when Mr. "Wesley had 
no communication with this country ; while Mr. As- 
bury was confined to the State of Delaware ; when 
the reception of members and the government of the 
Church were in the hands of young, inexperienced 
men, and when more than one half of the Church 
was entirely under the control of those who had been 



Methodism versus Slavery, 1766-1784. 55 

born and raised in the midst of slavery, the sin of 
wliich thev had not been taught. 

" At the CoDference of 1780, in Baltimore, some of 
the preachers so recently converted and sent out to 
preach were found to be jDossessed of slaves. There 
was at this time no written rule on the practice of 
slave-holding. Hence, the Minutes of that year : 
^Question 16. Ought not this Conference to require 
those traveling preachers who hold slaves to give 
promises to set them free? Answer. Yes. Ques- 
tion 17. Does this Conference acknowledge that 
slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and na- 
ture, and hurtful to society ; contrary to the dictates 
of conscience and pure religion, and doing that which 
we would not others should do to us and ours ? Do 
we pass our disapprobation on all our friends who 
keep slaves, and advise their freedom? Aiiswer. 
Yes.' 

" This was a noble testimony, worthy the men who 
made it, the Gospel they preached, and the Churches 
they were planting. It was put forth in the very 
seat of slavery, at the zenith of the slave-trade, in the 
midst of a revolution, when a timid or worldly policy 
would have suggested silence, and at a time when 
almost every man's hand was raised against them. 
There was a moral sublimity in their attitude. As 
embassadors from God they fearlessly proclaimed the 
doctrines of their commission. They did not wait 
until public opinion was ready to receive their prin- 
ciples. They were in advance of public opinion 
nearly a century. Circumstances were not to mold 
them ; they set themselves to molding the world and 
its institutions to the doctrines of Christ. Xone were 
more willing to yield obedience to Csesar in that which 



56 AXTISLAYEET StPvUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

was his ; but then Csesar must not invade the temple 
of God, nor trammel them in carrying out their high 
mission. This record reared a moral monument in the 
Monumental City that still towers splendidly above its 
marble shafts, throwing a halo of glory around the mem- 
ory of the men who raised it, and furnishing a with- 
ering rebuke to the ministers who have since pleaded 
for slavery or apologized for it, wliile it grandly stands 
as a beacon light to guide the antislavery followers of 
the fathers in other generations. This testimony at 
the Baltimore Conference, after the union with the 
Conference in Virginia was acquiesced in, was incorpo- 
rated in the general Minutes, and became the opinion 
of the entire Church of that day in reference to 
slavery." — Letter of Bev. D. Be Vinne, '' Zion's 
Watchman,'' 1842. 

Rev. Jesse Lee says : " If any rule was fixed at the 
Baltimore Conference, the preachers in the South 
were under the necessity of abiding by it." 

The promise required of traveling preachers did 
not remove their practice of slavery wholly. Some 
few cases must have continued, as the vigilant Super- 
intendent secures the adoption of the following rules 
in 1784 touching the preachers, traveling and local, 
and laity as well. " Question 12. What shall we do 
with our friends that will buy and sell slaves ? An- 
swer. If they buy with no other design than to hold 
them as slaves, and have been previously warned, they 
shall be expelled ; and permitted to sell on no con- 
sideration. Question 13. What shall we do with our 
local preachers who will not emancipate their slaves 
in the States where the laws admit it ? Answer. 
Try those in Virginia another year, and suspend the 
preachers in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and 



Methodism vp:rsus Slavery, 17GG-1T84. r»7 

'New Jersey. Question 22. "What shall be clone with 
our traveling preachers that now are, or hereafter 
shall be, possessed of slaves, and refuse to manumit 
where the laws permit it ? Answer. Employ them 
no more." 

This action was the last on that subject during the 
period that American Methodism was under the direct 
supervision of Mr. Wesley. The following session of 
the preachers at the Christmas Conference inaugu- 
rated a new era, and the year 1Y85 commenced the 
history of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States, with Thomas Coke, LL.D., and Francis 
Asbury, Bishoj^s. 

Twelve years only had elapsed since the first Con- 
ference in America. But so positive, uncompromis- 
ing, and extensive had been the hostility of Meth- 
odism to slavery, that it was recognized in high 
places. It had conferred with the President of the 
Republic, with governors of States, and been listened 
to in leo:islative halls on behalf of the slave. And in 
the Convention where the Constitution of the United 
States was formed two years afterward, Methodism 
aided in holding back the oppressor's hand from 
blotting that document with the black words, " slave" 
and " slavery." For it is a fact of history that Mr. 
Marshall, of Virginia, afterward Chief- Justice, urged, 
in the discussion, with much emphasis and success, 
that if the Government thus countenanced slavery it 
would lose the support of the Methodists and Quakers. 
But these w^ords never were allowed a place in the 
Constitution. 



58 Antislayeky Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEE Y. 

THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHUECH VERSUS BLAYERY, 

1784r-1800. 

^T^IIE Methodist Societies in America which had 
-'- been organized bj the preachers sent out by 
John Wesley, were, by his instructions, given through 
Dr. Coke, formed into an Episcopal Church in 1784. 
From that time forward the Methodist Episcopal 
Church takes its place in American history. At its 
organization the General Kules, prepared by Mr. Wes- 
ley in 1743 for the English Societies, were adopted, 
with the addition of a rule against slavery, as follows : 
'' The buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, 
women, or children, with an intention to enslave 
them." This was forbidden. A more intensified form 
of expression could not be framed to indicate the 
abhorrence felt toward slavery as it then existed in 
America. 

Besides forbidding the practice of slavery within 
the communion of the Church, the extirpation of 
the system of slavery was at once recognized as an 
object which demanded attention and action. The 
42d question of the Minutes was : " What methods 
can we take to extirpate slavery ? " And then fol- 
lowed, first of all, a sweeping indictment against 
slavery, which had never been so fully set forth in 
such few words, and which demonstrated its deserv- 
ing to be instant death. The Church then said: 
" We view it as contrary to the golden law of God, 



M. E. CiiUEC'H vEKSus Slaveky, ITStl— 1800. 50 

on which hang all the law and the prophets, and the 
inalienable rights of mankind, as well as every prin- 
ciple of the devolution, to hold in the deepest de- 
basement, in a more abject slavery than is perhaps 
to be found in any part of the world except America, 
so many souls that are capable of the image of God." 
Then followed special rules designed " to extirpate 
this abomination from among us," as they were indeed 
well adapted to do : 1. Every slave-holding member, 
within twelve months, was required to execute a deed 
of manumission, gradually giving his slaves their 
freedom. 2. All infants were to have immediate 
freedom who were born after these rules went into 
force. 3. Members who chose not to comply were 
allowed to withdraw within tv\xlve months. 4. The 
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was denied to all 
such thenceforward. 5. And no slave-holders were 
to be admitted thereafter to the communion table or 
to membership in the Church. 6. And any mem- 
ber who bought, or sold, or gave slaves away, except 
on purpose to free them, was immediately to be ex- 
pelled. 

And these provisions were not a dead letter on the 
journal of the Conference. Mr. Samuel Davis, of 
New York city, who resided in the slave States from 
before the organization of the Church in 1785 until 
1826, in a letter to Dr. Fisk, which was published in 
" Zion's Watchman," April 8, 1838, says : " I know it 
was required of all those who joined our Church, in 
our district, in those early days of Methodism, that 
they should execute an instrument of emancipation 
of all the slaves in their possession, which they had 
inherited, according to their respective ages and cir- 
cumstances; and if any members had bought, or 



60 Antislaveky Stkuggle and Triumph. 

Bhonlcl buy, for their own use, any slave, a committee 
was appointed to determine how long the slave should 
serve ; and this committee was regulated in its esti- 
mates by the age, health, and cost of the slaves, after 
which none of those thus emancipated were consid- 
ered by us as slaves. So universally were these rules 
attended to, that I never knew but one instance of 
any member's neglecting them, and that was my next 
neighbor, at whose house our presiding elder called 
on business with a preacher who was then stationed 
there in the year 1792. When the elder was about 
to retire, the gentleman of the house invited him to 
stay to dinner. The reply was, ^ I never eat a meal 
in a Methodist slave-holder's house,' and he immedi- 
ately left him. I have heard Bishop Asbury and 
many of the early preachers preach pointedly against 
slavery. At our quarterly meetings, where hundreds 
were present with their slaves, I have repeatedly 
heard our preachers condemn the practice as a vile sin 
against God, morally, socially, and politically wrong, 
no one molesting nor interrupting the man of God. 
And I have no doubt, had all our ministers done their 
duty, there would not have been a slave left in this 
country twenty years ago. For I know that about 
that time, and a few years previous, there were hun- 
dreds of slaves set free by the members of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church." 

In other sections of the country immediate opposi- 
tion to these rules was very general. Bishop Asbury, 
in liis Journal, says : " At the Virginia Conference for 
1785 several petitions were presented by some of the 
principal members, urging the suspension of the rules 
on slavery." But Dr. Coke and the Conference 
brought affairs to this issue ; that, unless the rules 



M. E. CiirRcii VERSUS Slavery, 178^-1800. Gl 

were permitted to operate, preacliing should be with- 
drawn from those circuits and places in which they 
were too obnoxious to be suffered. This decision, 
mainly reached by the influence of Dr. Coke, settled 
the affair for the time, and the preachers were ap- 
pointed and the rules enforced. 

The course pursued by Dr. Coke at the Virginia 
Conference was not sustained by the action of the 
body meeting at Baltimore subsequently, which exer- 
cised more authority. There an informal action was 
had which appears as a 7iota bene, with a recommend- 
ation preceding it, thus : " It is recommended to all 
our brethren to suspend the execution of the minute 
on slavery till the deliberations of a future Confer- 
ence ; and that an equal space of time b'j allowed all 
our members for consideration, when the minute sliall 
be put in force." And then, before retiring their 
battery from the boldly aggressive position now for 
a few months occupied at the front, every gun was 
loaded to the muzzle with an '^ K. B.," and a parting 
shot fired point-blank at the system, the echo of 
which has been reverberating now these many years 
as a testimony and a prophecy both. Here it is : 
" We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice 
of slavery, and shall not cease to seek its destruction 
by all wise and prudent means." 

The purpose of a future enforcement of the sus- 
pended rules was never accomplished. Mr. Lee, in 
his history of the Methodists, says: ''These rules 
were offensive to most of our Southern friends, and 
were much opposed by many of our private members, 
local preachers, and some of the traveling preachers ; 
and they were never afterward carried into full 
force." 



62 AXTISLAYERY StKUGGLE AND TeIUMPII. 

Bishop Asbiiry relates, in his Journal of 1785, that 

great agitation against the rules existed. " Col. 

and Dr.. Coke disputed on the subject, and the 
colonel used some threats. 'Next day. Brother 
O'Kelly let fly at them, and they were made angry 
enough. We, however, came off with whole bones." 
The standard-bearers of the Church kept her testimo- 
nies on their banners, in spite of opposition and danger. 

The Discipline of 1786, however, indicates a yield- 
ing to outside pressure, inasmuch as nothing is re- 
tained relating to slavery, except the General Rule and 
the following : " What shall be done with those who 
buy or sell slaves, or give them away ? Answer. 
They are immediately to be expelled, unless they buy 
them on purpose to free them." This did prevent 
Methodists from being slave-traders, but it did not 
forl)id their continuing to be slave-holders. For six 
years no other change was made, but in 1792 the Dis- 
cipline appears still further shorn of its antislavery 
power by the omission of this statute law against the 
domestic slave-trade, while the General Rule is re- 
tained, except the words, " the bodies and souls," and 
this was the only law of the Church until 1796. 

This aj^parent inertia and actual repeal of legisla- 
tion, was not, however, an index of the measure of 
antislavery action put forth by the Church. Anti- 
slavery preachers found sufficient warrant in the Gen- 
eral Rule for the denunciation of slavery. And the 
embarrassments to proper discipline thrown in their 
way by the lack of Conference action, and by the 
rescinding of former statutes in favor of freedom, 
were soon removed by the return of the Church from 
its divergences to a renewal of testimony and pro- 
hibitory laws. 



M. E. Chukch versus SlxVvery, 1784-1800. 03 

A new departure was inaugurated in 1796. The 
Discipline of that year, by the request of the General 
Conference, was published by the Bishops with notes 
prepared by them. To the General Rule on slavery 
they appended this note : '^ The buying and selling 
the souls and bodies of men — for what is the body 
v/ithout the soul but a dead carcass ? — is a complicated 
crime. It was, indeed, in some measure overlooked in 
the Jews, by reason of the wonderful hardness of 
their hearts, as was the keeping of concubines and the 
divorcing of wives at pleasure ; but it is totally oppo- 
site to the whole spirit of the Gospel. It has the 
immediate tendency to fill the mind with pride and 
tyranny, and is frequently productive of almost every 
act of lust and cruelty which can disgrace the human 
species. Even the moral philosopher will candidly 
confess that, if there be a God, every perfection he 
possesses must be opposed to a practice so contrary to 
every moral idea which can influence the human 
mind." This is supported by quotations from the 
prophets and apostles, including Nehemiah's sharp 
question : " Will ye even sell your brethren ? " 
Isaiah's thundering edict : " Let the oppressed go 
free ; break every yoke ! " Ezekiel's denunciation 
against merchants who "traded the persons of men;" 
Paul's application of the law " for unholy and pro- 
fane, for man-slayers and men-stealers ;" and reached 
the climax of divine malediction with the curse of the 
Apocalypse on Babylon for making " merchandise of 
slaves and souls of men." 

A new section, " Of Slavery," was put in the Dis- 
cipline of 1T96, opening with, "We declare that we 
are more than ever convinced of the great evil of 
African slavery," which renewed the direct assault 



64 Antislavery Stuuggle and Triumph. 

upon the system of slavery after a suspension of hos- 
tilities for ten jears, or since 1YS6. Again the extir- 
pation movement is resumed, thus: ''What regula- 
tions shall be made for the extirpation of the crying 
CAnl of African slavery 'i '• The answer to this ques- 
tion then given was continued for eight years, with 
the addition in 1800 of two j)aragraphs, making six 
in all, which may thus be summed up: 1. All persons 
holding slaves, if admitted to official stations in the 
Church, must give security for their emancipation, 
such as the yearly Conferences might designate, which 
now had full power. 2. All slave-holders asking ad- 
mission as members must be spoken to freely and 
faithfully by the preacher on the subject of slavery. 
3. Slave-selling was to be followed by immediate 
expulsion ; and slave-buying was allowed only on 
condition that the slave, and offspring thereof, should 
be held only for a term of years to be fixed by the 
Quarterly Conference. 4. The deep attention of the 
Church was asked for to the subject of negro slavery, 
and memorials thereon requested, to be imparted to 
the ensuing General Conference, in order to take 
further steps toward eradicating this enormous evil 
from the Church. 5. Any traveling ]3reacher who 
became a slave-owner, by any means, forfeited his 
ministerial character, unless he executed, if practi- 
cable, a legal emancipation, conformably to the laws 
of the State in which he lived. (J. The Annual Con- 
ferences were directed to prepare antislavery memo- 
rials to the State Legislatures, have them circulated 
for signatures, and by every means in their power 
"further the blessed undertaking" for gradual eman- 
cipation of the slaves. " Let this be continued from 
year to year until the desired end be accomplished." 



These regulations were far below the stringent 
rules of 1Y84:, yet they were far bey or. d the position 
taken by any other Chnrch, and quite ^in advance of 
the average public sentiment on slavery. Even as early 
as 1788 we have already noted Bishop Asbnry's state- 
ment that other persuasions were active in the oppo- 
site direction, and that their nlinister^ -boldly preached 
agairist the freedom of the slaves. yiethodism had 
been standing alone in tlie struggle ibr thirty years. 

The provisions of tlie Discipline adopted in 1800, 
especially the last, inaugurated an aggressive move- 
ment. That political action meant work. Its orig- 
inators believed in freedom. They had faith in the 
t]-iumph of truth and right. Not satisfied with the 
enactment of this regulation, the General Conference 
authorized an " Address to all their brethren and 
friends in the United States," calling special attention 
to it. This was signed by Bishops Thomas Coke, 
Francis Asbury, and Richard Whatcoat ; and by 
Ezekiel Cooper, William M'Kendree, and Jesse Lee. 
It was an earnest ap23eal against " the great national 
evil," which, they said, deprived ''so many of our 
fellow-creatures of every trace of liberty," and which 
was, for the people of the United States, declared to 
be " an inconsistency which can scarcely be paralleled 
in the history of our race." "At this General Con- 
ference we wished, if possible, to give a blow at the 
root of this enormous evil." " We, therefore, deter- 
mined at last to rouse up all our influence in order to 
hasten, to the utmost in our power, the universal 
extirpation of this crying sin." So said the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church at the opening of the nineteenth 
century. Xoble words and brave purposes were 
thereby put on record by the fathers ! 
6 



66 An-^.^^^^^very Stkl-c'^xtp' Axp Triumph. 



CHAPTEK VI. 

SLAVERY TOLERATED BY THE CHURCH, 1800-1824. 

THE antisla'^ery platform on which the Church 
stood at ti^s period was vigorously assailed by 
the extreme South. The Bishops ^ere ths leaders of 
the antislavery movement recommenced in the year 
1800. Their action was not merely perfunctory. 
Besides bringing before the Annual Conferences this 
question for counsel and action, officially they pub- 
lished and circulated antislavery pamphlets all over 
the land on their personal responsibility. 

A pamphlet attributed to Rev. Gabriel Capers, 
brother of Bishop Capers, referring to the action of 
the first Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
says : " Many years ago the venerable Bishops Coke 
and Asbury published a pamphlet on slavery, which 
compelled the enlightened and benevolent Legislature 
of South Carolina to pass an act authorizing any per- 
son to repair to Methodist meetings and disperse 
the negroes, whether assembled with or without the 
consent of their owners. The act was justified by the 
first law of nature — self-defense — and was based upon 
the fact that Methodism at that period, whether at the 
I^orth or South, was identified with the most deadly 
opposition to slavery. It continued in force — and 
with the utmost propriety, too — until the ministers of 
that denomination ceased to assail the institution of 
bondage and to expel the members of their Societies 
for buying and selling a slave under any circum- 



The Ciiukcii Tolerates Slavery, 1800-1824. (57 

stances." — Letter of Rev. D. Be Vmne, " Zion's 
Her aid;' 1844. 

The antislavery doctrine and discipline of the 
Church evidently did prevail in South Carolina, as 
well as in ]^ew York, in those early days, but was 
soon displaced after persecution began to be suffered. 
The late Bishop Capers, then a member of the Gen- 
eral Conference held at Cincinnati, in 1836, said that 
these persecutions ceased when Methodist people 
began to hold slaves. "At length people began to 
consider that many of them were slave-holders ; why 
should they be insurrectionists ? This went far to 
raise them above suspicion." And in the General 
Conference held at New York, in 1844, Dr. Capers 
further testified to the presence and influence of the 
Address of the Conference of 1800 : "I never saw 
but one of those documents called Addresses to the 
Legislatures, and I regret that I did not preserve a 
copy of it. I can, however, assure you that Orange 
Scott never wrote or published a more violent, incen- 
diary, and disloyal document. Some of the preachers 
would not circulate them because they believed they 
would do harm. Among these was George Dorr. 
He said he could not and he would not be the bearer 
of such a communication to the people of his charge. 
He preached in Charleston, and the paper found its 
way there and cost him much trouble. They came 
in some way to Brother Harper's store. He did not 
intend to circulate them, but one got out in some way 
and produced a great excitement. The people charged 
the bringing of the papers into town on poor Dorr, 
who had done all he could to oppose them. I saw the 
mob as I was going down town, and understood that 
they were going to duck the preacher. The feeling 



68 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

became so deep and general, and the excitement rose 
so high, that it became necessary to expurgate all that 
related to slavery from the copies of the Discipline 
that were sent to South Carolina." — ^'"Report of De- 
'bates^'' Matlack and Lee. 

The earnest and untiring zeal of the Bishops to 
carry out the well-matured plans of the General Con- 
ference were not equal to the deep-rooted hostility of 
the people of the South, who were diligently at work 
upon the selfish fears of a rising Church, linked as 
that hostility was with the suj)ineness of a ministry 
naturally ambitious of denominational success. Facts 
similar to these now given could be recited, showing 
the same state of feeling in other Southern States, 
underlying a reactionary movement against the inter- 
ests of freedom, and in conflict with the antislavery 
plans and purposes of the Church, which became 
dominant in a very few years. But without such de- 
tail, the retrograde action will be clearly understood 
from what has come under notice already and by the 
facts hereafter given. 

Dr. Durbin said, in 184:4, at the General Conference 
held in New York city : " The history of the Church 
shows this point indisj^utably, that the highest ground 
that has ever been held upon the subject of slavery 
was taken at the very organization of the Church, 
and that concessions have been made by the Church 
continually from that time to this in view of the 
necessities of the South. Even the language of the 
question about slavery was mitigated. It had been, 
^ What regulations shall be made for the extirpation 
of the crying evil of African slavery?' In 1804 it 
was changed to, ' What shall be done for the extirpa- 
tion of the evil of slavery ? ' In 1808 all that relates 



The Cjiurcii Tolerates Slavery, 1800-1824:. GO 



to slave-holding among private members was stricken 
out, and no rule on the subject has existed since." — 
'^Delates of 1844," pp. 173, 174. 

The Discipline of 1804, moreover, shows other 
clianges than that made in the form of the question 
which heads the section on slavery. The section itself 
was materially altered. The "blessed undertaking" 
of the year 1800 to memorialize State Legislatures, 
which was " to give a blow at the root of the evil," 
and which the Church then purposed should "be con- 
tinued from year to year until the desired end be ac- 
complished," was entirely abandoned. Slave-selling 
was allowed, " at the request of the slave, in cases of 
mercy and humanity, agreeably to the judgment of 
u committee of the male members of the Society, ap- 
2)ointed by the preacher who has charge of the cir- 
■cuit." Tjie rules, as thus modified against traveling 
preachers holding slaves, on slave-holders being offi- 
cial members, on free and faithful talk with slave- 
holding probationers, on buying and selling slaves, 
and on gradual emancipation of all slaves, were all 
utterly canceled for four States in the South, embrac- 
ing one_ fifth of the Church members, or about 
12^3,000, by the provision : " Nevertheless, the mem- 
bers of our Societies in the States of Xorth Car- 
olina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, shall 
be exempted from the above rules." Furthermore, 
the request made in 1800 of the whole Church to con- 
sider the question of negro slavery, and impart im- 
portant thoughts to the General Conference, in order 
to take further steps toward eradicating this enor- 
mous evil, was withdrawn from the Discipline. And 
instead thereof a provision was adopted, as a present 
close and fitting inverted climax to this down 



70 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

grade, in the interests of slave-holders every-where : 
" 5. Let our preachers from time to time, as occasion 
serves, admonish and exhort all slaves to render due 
respect and obedience to the commands and interests 
of their respective masters." 

And the Church entered upon the ensuing quad- 
rennium with but little apparent zeal for " African 
liberty," as Bishop Asbury termed it, and only "as 
much as ever," instead of " more than ever," " con- 
vinced of the great evil of slavery," which had ceased 
to be a " crying evil," and was not in the Discipline 
now recognized as existing "in the United States." 
The question was becoming a so-called delicate one, 
and was not to be roughly handled as aforetime. 
Smoother words, in moderate tones, began to be 
spoken. 

Four years were passed on this line. The Dis- 
cipline of 1808 contained only the paragraphs about 
official members being slave-holders, and on traveling 
preachers who were slave-holders, with a new para- 
graph allowing the Annual Conferences to regulate 
the traffic in slaves as they saw lit. The free and 
faithful talk with slave-holding probationers, all the 
restrictions against private members holding, buying, 
or selling slaves heretofore contained in the section 
on slavery, as well as the duty of exhorting slaves to 
obey and respect their masters, are all omitted in and 
after 1808. Four years later the paragraph relating 
to Annual Conference powers was prefaced with the 
vv'ords : " Whereas the laws of some of the States 
do not admit of emancipating of slaves without a 
special act of the Legislature." A clause was added 
at the same time to the requisites for local eldership : 
" Provided, nevertheless, that no slave-holder shall be 



The Ciiukcii Toleeates Slavery, 1800-1824. 71 

eligible to the office of an elder where the laws will 
admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave 
to enjoy freedom." 

In 1816 a verbal change onlj^ was made, and in 
1820 the paragraph authorizing Annual Conferences 
to form regulations relative to buying and selling 
slaves was rescinded. But in 1824 the section on 
slavery vras amended for the last time until 1860. 
What the position of the Church was on the question 
of slavery, and what plan the Methodist Episcopal 
Church then provided " for the extirpation of the evil 
of slavery," will be found quoted in full as given below : 

The " General Rules " forbid " the buying and sell- 
ing of men, women, and children, with an intent to 
enslave them." 

The '' Section on Slavery " said : 

" 1. We declare that we are as much as ever con- 
vinced of the great evil of slavery; therefore, no 
slave-holder shall be eligible to any official station 
in our Church hereafter where the laws of the State 
in v^hich he lives will admit of emancipation, and 
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. 

" 2. When any traveling preacher becomes an 
owner of a slave or slaves by any means, he shall for- 
feit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he 
execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of 
such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in 
which he lives. 

"3. All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon 
our m-cmbers the necessity of teaching their slaves to 
read the word of God, and to allow them time to 
attend upon the public worship of God on our regu- 
lar days of divine service. 

"4. Our colored preachers and official members 



72 Antislaveky Struggle and Tkiumpii. 

shall have all the privileges which are usual to others 
in the District and Quarterly Conferences where the 
usages of the country do not forbid it. And the pre- 
siding elder may hold for them a separate District 
Conference where the number of colored preachers 
will justify it. 

" 5. The Annual Conferences may employ colored 
preachers to travel and preach where their services 
are judged necessary ; provided that no one shall be 
so employed without having been recommended ac- 
cording to the form of Discipline.'' 

This summary of the antislavery sentiment and 
antislavery purposes of the Church, as set forth in 
the book of Discipline of 1824, and afterward for 
thirty-six years, gives us the following points : First, 
The system of slavery is declared to be a great evil. 
Second, The extirpation of slavery is the objective 
point of a stereotyped question. Third, Slave-trading 
is forbidden. Fourth, Traveling preachers might not 
hold slaves where emancipation was practicable. 
Fifth, OfScial members of the Church could hold 
slaves in every State where liberated slaves were not 
allowed to remain on the soil. Sixth, Private mem- 
bers could hold slaves anywhere, the only duty re- 
quired or obligation imposed being put upon the 
preacher, " who shall prudently enforce " on the 
members the claims of their slaves to read the Bible 
and to worship God. Seventh, The usages of slave- 
holding communities made the measure of Church 
privileges for colored preachers and official members. 
Eighth, Colored preachers might be employed as 
itinerants. How far from the old testimonies were 
these modiiied regulations, and how powerless for the 
work of extirpating slavery ! 



The Ciiuecii Tolekates Slavery, lSOO-1824. 73 

Witli the latest years of Bishop Asbury's life came 
feebleness and lessened activity. From 1804 he had 
been without the companionship of Bishop Coke, who 
had returned to England, and, afterward, on the way 
to India, died in 1814. The inspiration of their joint 
zeal in the antislavery struggle was not at work in the 
Conferences as formerly. And Bishop Asbury, alone 
in the Episcopacy from 1806 to 1808, after Whatcoat 
died, had more than lie could well accomplish as the 
chief executive in a Church of one hundred and fifty- 
one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five members, 
with a pastorate embracing five hundred and forty 
traveling preachers. 

The recognition of the laws of slavery and the 
usages of slave-holding communities, by framing the 
Discipline of the Church thereby, and administering 
the same to please slave-holding Methodists, seems to 
have come very near extirpating the spirit of liberty, 
and did most certainly establish slavery with almost 
invulnerable ramparts. 

So tenacious was this already " privileged class " of 
the sanctity of their institution, that any provision of 
the Discipline, or action of tlie General Conference, 
ever so remotely touching it, was condemned and 
must be removed out of the way. As early as 1796, 
" at the request of the Annual Conferences, colored 
preachers vv^ere occasionally ordained under a special 
arrangement. Bishop Asbury at this session [1800] 
desired that the arrangement should be formally 
adopted by the General Conference. Accordingly it 
was enacted that when the colored members had 
built a house of worship and had a person qualified, 
he might be ordained a deacon upon obtaining a rec- 
ommendation of two thirds of the male members of 



74 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

the Society, and also one from tlie minister in charge 
and his associates in the city or circuit. The rule, 
however, was offensive to many of the Southern peo- 
ple, and, though acted upon locally, was never inserted 
in the Disciphne. — (Simpson's " Hundred Years of 
Methodism," p. 84.) . 

The adjustment of the laws of the States to the 
principles of truth and justice, as these were identi- 
fied with freedom and equality of natural rights, was 
not an impossible task for American citizens, mem- 
bers of the Methodist Church. And that would have 
made so much better a history. How unfortunate 
that such history was not made ! In this country the 
influence of ecclesiastical bodies upon the body of the 
people is immediate and forcible, and the identity of 
the people with the. government is without parallel 
in any part of the world. What might have been in 
most of the Southern States, at an early day, is sug- 
gested by Dr. William A. Smith's remarks about Vir- 
ginia : " I told Dr. Bond that Southern Methodists 
concurred in making the laws — voluntarily did so, as 
far as the system .itself was concerned ; and that in 
Yirginia, particularly, they could not avail themselves 
of the benefit of his apolog}'. Because, so strong is 
the non-slaveholding interest, that at any time when 
the membership of the Church shall unite their votes 
with the non-slaveholders, in Western Virginia par- 
ticularly, they are competent to overthrow the whole 
system. But that we did not do so, because we con- 
sidered it our solemn Christian duty to sanction and 
sustain the system under its present unavoidable cir- 
cumstances." — Asburifs Letter^ ^^ Christian Advocate 
and Journal^'' July 31, 1844. 



Abolitioxism — English a^d American. 75 



CHAPTEK YIL 

ABOLITIOXISM ENGLISH AXD AMERICAN". 

n^HE period now readied in the history of Amer- 
-^ lean Methodism marked the beginning of a 
movement against slavery in the Yv^est Indies, under 
the Britisli Government, in which the Enghsh AYes- 
leyans were zealous and effective co-workers. At the 
beginning of the antislavery movement there the 
number of Chui'ch members in the Methodist Soci- 
eties in the West Indies, according to the British 
Minutes, in 1S22, was 880 wliites and 23,819 black 
or colored. About 80,000 adults and children were 
then under the instructions of the Wesleyan mission- 
aries. 

The British Antislavery Society, which was organ- 
ized in 1823, included Jabez Bunting, Bichard Wat- 
son, and many other "Wesleyan iPxinisters among its 
active and influential members. The advocates of 
slavery in Jamaica were offended thereby, and per- 
secuted the missionaries, who were constrained to 
sign a declaration in favor of slavery and censuring 
the British antislavery men. To this the Wesleyan 
Missionary Committee responded by a public dis- 
avowal of the conduct of their missionaries, and 
an assertion of their positive antagonism to slavery, 
and their purpose to seek its overthrow. This was 
in 1825. 

This manifesto, Lord Bathurst, principal Secretary 
for the Colonies, regarded so dangerous to the peace 



Y6 Antislayeky Stuuggle and TmuMPii. 

of tlie West Indies that he communicated with Mr. 
Watson, the missionary secretary, on tlie subject, 
showing great uneasiness and excitement. The reply 
of Mr. Watson reaffirmed prudently the Wesleyan 
antislavery position and views, and then added : " We 
could not shrink from the avowal of this opinion on 
the general question of slavery when circumstances 
obliged us either to make it or tacitly to profess the 
contrary opinion. We cannot surrender our princi- 
ples even to obtain that favor in the West Indies by 
which we might increase our opportunities of doing 
good. Wherever policy may be proper, we think it 
out of its place in the proceedings of a religious so- 
ciety." Wise words, worthy of world-wide accepta- 
tion. 

At this period, and for seven years afterward, the 
home government was almost a unit in favor of 
continuing slavery in the West India Colonies, and 
refused to hear with any j^atience any one, except 
indeed Mr. Brougham, in the House of Commons, 
speak against the system. But the Wesleyan Con- 
ference was not silent, nor their West India mission- 
aries inactive. Persecutions were suffered ; mobs 
assailed their dwellings, assaulted their persons, and 
destroyed their chapels. Tiie Colonial authorities 
im.prisoned the missionaries in a loathsome dungeon, 
enforcing intolerant laws. One died from broken- 
down health induced by it. Others returned to En- 
gland to recuperate slowly. 

A bill reasserting religious tolerance for the mis- 
sionaries in the West Indies having been brought 
into Parliament by Mr. Buxton, in 1825, the Wes- 
leyan Conference of that 3^ear adopted, unanimously, 
a vote of thanks to him and to those who su])ported 



Abolitionism — English and American. 



i i 



it. And in 1830, wlien Mr. Brougham was the can- 
didate for Parliament for the County of York, tlie 
entire influence of Mr. Watson and tlie Weslejans 
was used in his favor. This was followed by the 
adoption of six resolutions, with perfect cordiality, at 
the Conference in Leeds, July 30, 1830. They de- 
clared slavery to be, 1. In direct opposition to all 
the principles of natural right and to the spirit of the 
religion of Christ. 2. That the system doomed a 
great majority of slaves to labors inhumanly wasting 
to human life, and to arbitrary, excessive, and degrad- 
ing punishments. 3. That the system was necessarily 
unfavorable to missions ; inspired slave-holders with 
contempt and fear of the negroes ; nurtured violent 
prejudices of caste which opposed formidable ob- 
stacles to the employment of colored teachers and 
missionaries ; discouraged marriage by violent separa- 
tions, and encouraged grossness which corrupted the 
young and polluted the most hallowed relations of 
life ; fostered irreligion, and rendered nugatory every 
attempt at efficient religious instruction. 4. That the 
right of a Christian brotherhood of 24,000 West India 
slaves to freedom was, if possible, strengthened by 
their being partakers with us of like precious faith. 
5. That the Wesleyans throughout the kingdom are 
earnestly recommended to petition Parliament for the 
speedy and universal abolition of slavery. 6. The 
members who enjoy the elective franchise are urged 
to use that solemn trust, in the elections now on the 
eve of taking place, in favor of those candidates who 
pledge themselves to support measures for the entire 
abolition of slavery." — Condensed from '^The Great 
Secession^'' chaps, i, iv. 
These aroused an antislavery agitation among the 



78 Antislayeky Struggle and Triumph. 

"Wesleyans, which was kept up with an unflagging 
zeal year by year at tlie Conferences, in all the chap- 
els, under the lead of their principal ministers and 
laymen, until the desired end was accomplished and 
slavery ceased in all the British Colonies, Aug. 1, 
1834. An apprenticeship system was continued until 
1838. Then the day of jubilee came w^hen liberty 
w-as proclaimed throughout all the land to all the 
bondmen thereof, numbering in all 800,000 souls. 

" The Wesley ans kept watch-night in all their 
chapels on the night of July 31. One of the Wes- 
ley an missionaries gave us an account of the watch- 
meeting at the chapel in St. John's. The spacious 
house w^as filled with the candidates for liberty. All 
was animation and eagerness. A mighty chorus of 
voices swelled the song of expectation and joy, and 
as they united in prayer the voice of the leader was 
drowned in the universal acclamations of thaiiksgiv- 
ing and praise, and blessing, and honor, and glory, 
to God who had come down for their deliverance. 
In such exercises the evening was spent until the 
hour of twelve approached. The missionary then 
proposed that when the clock on the cathedral should 
begin to strike, the whole congregation should fall 
upon their knees and receive the boon of freedom in 
silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its firsfc 
note, the crowded assembly prostrated themselves on 
their knees. All was silence save the quivering, 
half-stifled breath of the struggling spirit. The slov/ 
notes of the clock fell upon the multitude ; peal on 
peal, peal on j^eal, rolled over the prostrate throng, 
in tones of angels' voices, thrilling among the deso- 
late chords and weary heart-strings. Scarce had the 
clock sounded its last note, when the lightning flashed 



Abolitionism — English and American. 79 

vividly around, and a lond peal of thunder roared 
along the sky — Clod's pillar of lire and his trump of 
jubilee ! A moment of profoundest silence passed — 
then came the burst : they broke forth into prayer ; 
they shouted ; they sung ' Glory,' ' Alleluia ; ' they 
clapped their hands, leaped up, fell down, clasped 
each other in their free arms, cried, laughed, and 
went to and fro, tossing upward their unfettered 
hands ; but high above the whole there w^as a mighty 
sound which ever and anon swelled up — it was the 
utterings, in broken negro dialect, of gratitude to 
God. After this gush of excitement had spent itself, 
and the congregation became calm, the religious ex- 
ercises were resumed, and the remainder of the night 
was occupied in singing and prayer, in reading the 
Bible, and in addresses from the missionaries explain- 
ing the nature of the freedom just received, and ex- 
horting the freed people to be industrious, steady, 
obedient to the laws, and to show themselves in all 
things worthy of the high boon which God had con- 
ferred upon them." — Thome and Kiniball, ''^Journal 
of West India Emancipation. ''^ 

Such was the outcome of English abolitionism, 
and mainly through the agency of the English Wes- 
leyans. 

Jabez Bunting, President of the English Wesleyan 
Conference in 1836, wisely said : " It must be ad- 
mitted that there was a great difference between hav- 
ing to emancipate 800,000 slaves at a distance, sep- 
arated by local situations, and those localities being 
favorable for their emancipation, and emancipating 
two or three millions of people [in America] living 
among them, man to man, and house to house, and 
so connected with their domestic life ; and he was 



^ 



80 Antislavery Struggle and Teiu:mph. 

not a candid abolitionist wlio did not admit that, 
tliongli slavery was the same all over the world, the 
facilities for terminating it might be diiferent." — 
''■Great Secession^^^ p. 151. 

And so it proved. To grapple with it in a hand- 
to-hand struggle at our doors, in our American homes, 
was too much for our Methodist fathers of the first 
generation. They grew old and feeble in a noble 
but unsuccessful effort to destroy African slavery in 
the United States. 

Subsequent to 1821: the General Conferences and 
the Church at large were occupied with questions of 
polity, and had little time and a lessening inclination 
to disturb slavery by any new measures for or against 
its extirpation, for about ten years. But soon after 
this the Annual and General Conferences, and the 
Church, were greatly agitated by a movement desig- 
nated " Modern Abolitionism." The origin of that 
movement it is j)roper to put on record, as also its 
character. 

A " IN^ew England Antislavery Society" was organ- 
ized in 1832, which recommended a national move- 
ment. The American Antislavery Society, conse- 
quently, was organized at Philadelphia, in 1833, by 
a convention of sixty-three abolitionists, from eleven 
States of the Union. Twelve of these were evan- 
gelical ministers. All professed to be Christians. 
Beriah Green was president. Lewis Tappan and 
the poet Whittier were the secretaries. Lucretia 
Mott, Esther Moore, Lydia White, and other worthy 
women, were members. The committee to prepare 
a declaration of sentiments was : Dr. E. P. Atlee, 
Ehzur Wright, William Lloyd Garrison, S. S. Joselyn, 
David Thurston, a Mr. Sterling, William Green, Jun., 



Abolitionism — English and American. 81 

Jolm Greenleaf Wliittier, William Goodell, Samuel 
J. May. The declaration embodied an elaborate ar- 
gument showing how trifling were the grievances of 
tiie Colonies in 1776 compared with the wrongs and 
sufferings of the slaves of 1833. These wrongs are 
recited in detail, and, " in view of the civil and relig- 
ious privileges of this nation, the guilt of its oppres- 
sion" is declared to be "unequaled by any other on 
the face of the earth." 

It was furthermore declared as their belief, " that 
there is no difference in principle between the Af- 
rican slave - trade and American slavery ; . . . that 
every American citizen who retains a human being 
in involuntary bondage is a man-stealer; . . . that 
the slaves ought to be instantly set free ; . . . that 
all those laws w^iich are now in force admitting the 
right of slavery are, before God, utterly null and 
void ; . . . that all persons of color ought to be ad- 
mitted forthwith to the enjoyment of the same priv- 
ileges and prerogatives as others ; . . . that no com- 
pensation should be given to the planters emancipat- 
ing their slaves;" and "that, if compensation is to 
be given at all, it should be given to the outraged and 
guiltless slaves." 

It also recognized " the sovereignty of each State 
to legislate exclusively on the subject of slavery 
within its limits," but insisted that Congress had " a 
right to suppress the domestic slave-trade between the 
States, and to abolish slavery in the Territories ; " and 
further, that the people of the free States were bound 
to do every thing " to remove slavery by moral and 
political action, as prescribed in the Constitution of 
the United States." And this was the argument in 
justification of the Society then organized. 



82 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

During tlie year 1835 there was $30,000 expended 
by this society ; one million publications \Yere issued, 
and fourteen lecturing agents were employed, Yvho 
oro-anized more than hve hundred auxiliarY societies. 
A great excitement prevailed, which was more violent 
against these agitators, however, than against slavery. 
The Methodist Episcopal Church shared largely in 
this feeling. 

The Ohio Annual Conference of 1835 said, "That, 
as the friends of peaceable gradual em'anci]3ation, we 
have no cause to regret the course which has been 
pui'sued by the Methodist Episcopal Church on the 
subject of slavery, as set forth in the Discipline, but 
retain undiminished confidence in the same ; . . . that 
we deeply regret the proceedings of the abolitionists 
and antislavery societies in the free States, and the 
consequent excitement thereby produced in the slave 
States." 

The Baltimore Annual Conference of 1836 resolved, 
"1. That Ave are as much as ever convinced of the great 
evil of slavery. 2. That we are opposed, in every part 
and particular, to the proceedings of the Abolitionists, 
which look to the immediate, indiscriminate, and gen- 
eral emancipation of slaves." 

The Kew York Conference of 1836 resolved, "That 
in the judgment of this Conference it is incompatible 
with the duty which its members owe to the Church, 
as its ministers, for them to be engaged in attending 
antislavery conventions, delivering abolition lectures, 
or forming antislavery societies, either in or. out of 
the Church, or in any way agitating the subject so as 
to disturb the peace and harmony of the Church, and 
that they be, and hereby are, affectionately advised 



Abolitionism — English and American. S3 

The Pliiladelpliia Conference of 1838 "heard with 
surprise and much regret tliat tlie Rev. O. Scott, of 
the New England Conference, and the Eev. G. Storrs, 
a local preacher, have come within our bounds, and 
are engaged in delivering lectures on modern aboli- 
tionism, and promoting the formation of antislavery 
societies within the Church ;" and resolved, " That 
this Conference strongly protest against the conduct 
of the said O. Scott and G. Storrs ;" " and that we 
also earnestly recommend our brethren and friends to 
discourage the objects and plans of said Scott and 
Storrs on the subject of modern abolitionism, as they 
tend to disturb the peace and prosperity within our 
bounds." 

The Pittsburgh Conference of 1838 resolved, " That 
while this Conference disclaims all intention of inter- 
fering with any man's private opinion ; and wdiile, as 
the Discipline says, ' we are as much as ever con- 
vinced of the great evil of slavery,' we jndge it incom- 
patible with the duties and obligations of Methodist 
preachers to spend their time in delivering abolition 
lectures, contributing to the getting up of abolition 
meetings, attending abolition conventions, or in cir- 
culating abolition papers." 

Resolutions of similar import were adopted by the 
Michigan Conference of 1838. This will suffice as 
specimens of ecclesiastical action in that direction. 

Several Southern States by their legislative enact- 
ments sought to induce the States of the ^N'orth to sup- 
press modern abolitionism. A few instances are quoted 
from Dr. Elliot's " Great Secession : " " Resolved^ 
That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every 
confidence in the justice and friendship of the non- 
slaveholding States, announces her confident expecta- 



84 Antislavery Struggle akd Triumph. 

tion, and she earnestly requests, that the governments 
of these States will promptly and effectually suppress 
all those associations within their respective limits 
purporting to be abolition societies." (Adopted De- 
cember 16, 1835.) North Carolina, December 19, 
1835 : " Resolved, That our sister States are respect- 
fully requested to enact penal laws prohibiting the 
printing of all such publications as may have a tend- 
ency to make our slaves discontented." Virginia 
adoj)ted a similar resolution February 16, 1836. The 
same year Georgia called on the people of the E'orth 
to "crush the traitorous designs of Abolitionists." 
Alabama also insisted " on the JS^orthern States enact- 
ing such penal laws as will iinally put an end to the 
malignant designs of the Abolitionists." And circu- 
lars were sent by the governors of Southern States to 
the governors of the ISTorthern States urging their 
concurrence in such action. 



Antislaveky Agitation, 1835, 1836. 85 



CHAPTER YIII. 



THE organization of the American Antislavery 
Society, in 1833, was only one year in advance of 
the first Methodist society. That was formed at the 
house of Mr. N. Dunn, 73 Leonard-street, New York. 
La Eoy Sunderland presided, and Bishop Hedding 
was chosen president of the society, but declined to 
serve as soon as he was informed of it. " The 'New 
England Methodist clergy very early identified them- 
selves with this cause. June 4, 1835, the jSTew En- 
gland Conference, sitting in Lynn, organized an anti- 
slavery society on the basis of the immediate and 
unconditional abolition of slavery, and invited George 
Thompson to address them. He preached a very 
powerful sermon from Ezek. xxviii, 14, 16 : " Thou 
art the anointed cherub that covereth ; and I have 
set thee so : thou wast upon the holy mountain of 
God ; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of 
the stones of fire. ... By the multitude of thy mer- 
chandise they have filled the midst of thee with vio- 
lence, and thou hast sinned : therefore I will cast thee 
as profane out of the mountain of God : and I will 
destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of 
the stones of fire." 

ISTorth Bennet-street Methodist Episcopal Church, 
in Boston, was 023ened to Mr. Thompson that year on 
Fast Day, for a sermon, and received warm words of 
commendation for their courage from the pen of 



86 AXTISLAVEKY StKUGGLE AND TllIUMPH. 

William Llojd Garrison : " In these days of slavish 
servility and malignant prejudices we are presented 
occasionally with some beantiful specimens of Chris- 
tian obedience and courage. One of these is seen in 
the opening of Korth Bennet-street Methodist Meet- 
ing-house, in Boston, to the advocates for the honor 
of God, the salvation of our country, and the freedom 
of enslaved millions in our midst. As the pen of the 
histoi'ian in after years shall trace the rise, progress, 
and glorious triumph of the abolition cause, he will 
delight to record, and posterity will delight to read, 
tlie fact that when all other pulpits were dumb, all 
other churches closed, on tlie subject of slavery in 
Boston, the boasted ' cradle of liberty,' there was one 
pulpit that would speak out, one Church that would 
throw open its doors in behalf of the down-trodden 
victims of American tyranny. The primitive spirit 
of Methodism is beginning to revive, with all its holy 
zeal and courage, and it will not falter until the 
Methodist Churches are purged from the pollution 
of slavery, and the last slave in the land stands forth 
a redeemed and reo-enerated beino^." — Haven : Intro- 
duction to " National Sermonsr 

The Kew Hampshire Conference formed an anti- 
slavery society the same year. Simultaneously, at the 
opening of the year 1835, a series of stirring articles 
appeared in " Zion's Herald," Boston, from Orange 
Scott ; and an "Appeal," which was written by La Boy 
Sunderland, signed by Shipley W. Wilson, Abram D. 
Merrill, La Roy Sunderland, George Storrs, and 
Jared Perkins. The " Appeal " was addressed to the 
members of the ISTew England and the New Hamp- 
shire Conferences, to which the appellants belonged. 
Besides, Orange Scott, during the same year, sent 



Antislavery Agitation, 1835, 1836, 87 

" The Liberator," Mr. Garrison's paper, free, for six 
montlis, to all the ministers of liis Conference. 

The "Appeal " opened a discussion that continued for 
thirty years, occupying the pens of able writers, in- 
cluding bishops, editors, and doctors, as well as pastors 
and laymen. This initiative document set forth the 
views of the Abolitionists on the general question of 
slavery ; its connection with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church ; the duty and responsibility of the Church ; 
all which was supported by the testimony of the Bi- 
ble, the Methodist Discipline, John Yf esley, and the 
English Wesleyans. It was well-matured and every 
way worthy of the grave matter now brought to the 
consideration of the Church and nation. After an 
exhaustive exposition of doctrines and duties, the 
appeal closed with urging all to become " well ac- 
quainted with the state of slavery in this country, 
especiall}^ as it is connected witli the Christian 
Church ; ... to remember those in bonds as bound 
with tliem, at the family altar and at the monthly con- 
cert for prayer ; ... to read and circulate the publica- 
tious of the American Antislavery Society ;" and to 
address the next General Conference as " cono:reo:a- 
tions and Conferences on this momentous subject." 
The first battery, manned by Methodist Abolitionists, 
had opened its fire. The reply was not long delayed, 
nor was it a less vigorous fire when aroused. 

A " Counter i\ ppeal " of remarkal)le ability appeared 
in the same paper, in reply, which was written by Prof. 
D. D. Whedon, dated March 27, 1835, signed by Wil- 
bur Fisk, JohnLinclsey, Bartholomew Otheman, Heze- 
kiah S. Ramsdell, Edward T. Taylor, Abel Stevens, 
Jacob Sanborn, and H. H. White. It was 23ublisiied 
April 8, 1835, and addressed to the same two Confer- 



88 Antislayeey Steuggle and Teiumph. 

ences. The signers of the " Counter " understand tlio 
"Appeal" as dedarmg " that no part of the system of 
slavery is just or humane, that no Christian can con- 
sistently support any part of it, and that the whole 
should be this moment abandoned ; . . . and that no 
slave-holder is truly awakened, and that no slave- 
holder can rightly be permitted a place in the Chris- 
tian Church." To the first of these positions it is 
replied, on " the basis of the divine law of love and 
the golden rule," that " the authority of the master 
should terminate so soon as its cessation would not 
produce more evils than would its longer continu- 
ance ; and the authority should be diminished in 
amount and severity when such diminution w^ould 
not produce more evil than it would subtract." 

To the second position objections are brought from 
the Scriptures of the ^ew Testament, which it is 
affirmed prove " that in the primitive Christian 
Church at Colosse, under the apostolic eye, and with 
the apostolic sanction, the relation of master and 
slave was permitted to subsist ; . . . that there were 
already such in the Church of Ephesus; . . . that 
the New Testament here (Ephes. vi, 5-9) and else- 
where enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obliga- 
tion due to a present rightful authority ; . . . that 
1 Tim. vi, 1, 2, presents an impregnable demonstra- 
tion that slave-holdino^ is not in all cases and inva- 
riably sinful ; that we may not say that no slave- 
holder is truly awakened; and that it does not of 
itself form ground of exclusion from the Christian 
Church. The '' Counter " maintained, also, that the 
Bible is opposed to slavery as a system, and disclaimed 
all purpose of defending the system or proving its 
perpetuity. What it opposed is the dogma, "That 



Antislavery AGriATioN, 1835, 1836. 89 

all slave-holding is sinful, and therefore should be 
universally and immediately abandoned." 

Following this scriptural argument, the " Counter " 
vindicated the action of the General Conference prior 
to 1836, and defended the Discipline as it then was ; 
and then expressed in earnest words the hope of the 
liberation of the slaves, without expatriation, in be- 
half of which an appeal is made " to our brethren of 
the South " that " they w^ould now emulate the mem- 
orable stand of our brethren of England, and with 
the name of Wesley on their banners and his spirit in 
their hearts, would seize the timely honor of leading 
out the foremost van of the great Christian move- 
ment, which in some of our States is directing their 
onward march toward the ultimate achievement of 
universal emancipation." Bishop Hedding read the 
" Counter," and appended his signature, saying, in 
general, '' I believe the arguments and statements are 
correct, particularly those which refer to the acts of 
the General Conference." 

Thus commenced the early controversy, in which, 
besides the above-named ministers of distinction, many 
others of equal ability were engaged^pro and con, for 
more than twenty-five years ensuing. The immediate 
objects sought by the Abolitionists were, the expres- 
sion of antislavery sentiments in the Annual and Quar- 
terly Conferences, and, through memorials from the 
Church generally, the enactment of prohibitory rules 
against slavery by the General Conference ; and, ulti- 
mately, the extirpation of slavery from the land. The 
necessary agitation of the Church, in order to secure 
all this, became a cause of solicitude to the Bisliops 
and others, who sought to allay the excitement by 
discouraging and suppressing the discussion, wdiich 



9U Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

they feared would embarrass and seriously injure the 
peace and unity of the Church and nation. Bishops 
Hedding and Emory therefore addressed a Pastoral 
Letter, September 10, 1835, to the same two Confer- 
ences already twice appealed to. The Bishops say : 
^' We have now between us attended the Xorthern 
and Eastern Conferences as far as the Troy, inclusive, 
and have found no such excitement within any of 
them, excejDt yours." They regard the general agita- 
tion as " a deep political game," which they advise 
the brethren not to be drawn into ; and attest, from, 
personal knowledge, that " nothing has ever occurred 
so seriously tending to obstruct and retard, if not abso- 
lutely to defeat, the cause of emancipation," as "the 
modern agitation on this subject." After enumerating 
the diificuities in the way of emancipation, the' impro- 
priety of insisting so vehemently on universal, uncon- 
ditional, and immediate abolition, regardless of all 
consequences, the Bishops refer to their own embar- 
rassing duties as administrators of discijDline in a very 
emphatic manner, and appeal to the Church generally 
to co-operate with them in discountenancing agitation. 
They say: "And if any will persist in so doing, 
whether from the pulpit or otherwise, we earnestly 
recommend to our members and friends every-where, 
by all lawful and Christian means, to discountenance 
them in such a course. The j^residing elders espe- 
cially we earnestly exhort to discountenance such 
practices, both by their counsel and example. And 
if any, of whatever class, go beyond their own bounds, 
or leave their proper appointments, whether under 
the pretext of agencies or otherv\ise, to agitate other 
societies or communities on this subject, we advise 
the preachers, the trustees, the official and other mem- 



ANTlSLAVEliY AGITATIU^•, 1835, 183G. 91 

bers, to manifest their disapprobation, and to refuse 
tlie nse of their pnlpits and houses for sucli purposes." 

Xo further detailed statements are necessary to 
aiford a correct view of the attitude of the parties 
engaged in this discussion, or to learn the position 
and purposes of the highest authorities in the Church 
as they were carried out in the xlnnual Conferences 
generally for seven years following. The two Annual 
Conferences addressed by the Pastoral Letter of the 
Bishops seem not to have been influenced thereby in 
their course of action. They had already elected 
Abolitionists the same year of the most decided char- 
acter to the ensuing General Conference, with two 
exceptions. From ISTew England : Orange Scott, 
Isaac Bonney, Phineas Crandall, Charles Yirgin, Jo- 
seph A. Merrill, Daniel Fillmore, Daniel Webb. 
From 'New Hampshire : Charles D. Cahoon, John F. 
Adams, Samuel Kelley, Schuyler Chamberlain, Jared 
Perkins, Elihu J. Scott, E. Scott, George Storrs, 
Samuel Xorris. With them were forwarded tlie first 
antislavery memorials that the General Conference 
had seen for a long time, a skirmish-line in advance 
of the solid colunnis of after years. 

Joseph A. Merrill presented one memorial signed 
by two hundred Methodist preachers, asking for the 
restoration of the original rule on slavery. Another, 
asking the same thing, was presented, signed by two 
thousand two hundred and eio^htv-four members of the 
Cliurch. Besides these, others were presented from 
within the bounds of the Maine, New England, New 
Hampshire, New York, Oneida, Genesee, and Troy 
Conferences, making the same request. They vv^ere 
referred to a committee of seven, two of whom were 
Abolitionists. The report was unfriendly. 



92 Antislaveey Struggle and Triumph. 

The action of the General Conference of 1836 was 
associated with a discussion of much interest, at times 
very exciting, which was introductory to and pro- 
phetic of momentous consequences within the ensu- 
ing twenty-five years. 

Dr. IN'athan Bangs' report of an answer to the " Ad- 
dress " of the AVesleyans of England was presented 
May 4, which said : " Had the Wesleyan Conference 
folly understood how slavery was interwoven in many 
of our State constitutions, they would probably have 
censured us less or modiiied their language." The 
report also spoke of the " trouble abolitionism " had 
made. Tobias Spicer, of the Troy Conference, said : 
" I think slavery should be inserted, instead of aboli- 
tionism." O. Scott and others thought so too. But 
the motion of John Early, of Virginia, to lay the re- 
port on the table, prevailed. As finally adopted the 
next day the answer to the Wesleyan "Address " did not 
censure abolitionism nor condemn slavery. The en- 
tire session nearly was occupied with the discussion of 
the paragraph on slavery by those only who were not 
Abolitionists, during which the Abolitionists heard in 
silence some hard things. Abolitionism was called 
''an unhallowed flame that has burned to the destruc- 
tion of both whites and blacks." John Early said : 
"Let the Methodists from Maine to Georgia come 
out and denounce Abolitionists, and it will place the 
]\[etliodist Episcopal Church on an eminence that it 
never liad before." 

On the appointment of the committee to j^repare 
the Pastoral Address, S. G. Koszel and S. Luckey 
moved to instruct them to incorporate a paragraph on 
" abolition ;" when O. Scott moved to add, " and 
another on slavery." Their motions were withdrawn. 



Antislayery Agitatiox, 1835, 1836. 03 

The next day, May 12. an opportunity was afforded 
for the amplest denunciation of Abolitionists and 
abolitionism, which was much enjoyed by their antag- 
onists. 

A regular weekly meeting of the Cincinnati Anti- 
slavery Society had been held on Tuesday evening. 
May 10. George Storrs and Samuel Xorris were 
present, being on no committee, and having no ap- 
pointment to preach. Each made a few remarks. 
This was the occasion of the resolutions already quoted 
in Chapter YIII of this volume. The discussion lead- 
ing to their adoption is an essential feature of the 
history of those times. An abridged report of it is 
herewith presented. (" The Philanthropist," J. G. 
Binney, reporter.) 

The preamble said : " Whereas, great excitement 
has pervaded this country on the subject of modern 
abolitionism, which is reported to have been greatly 
increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable 
conduct of two members of the General Conference 
in lecturing upon and in favor of that agitating topic ; 
and, whereas, such a course, on the part of any of its 
members, is calculated to bring upon this body the 
suspicion and distrust of the connnunity, and misrep- 
resent its sentiments in regard to the point at issue ; 
and, whereas, a due regard for its own character, as 
well as a just concern for the interests of the Church 
confided to its care, demand a full and unequivocal 
expression of the views of the General Conference in 
the premises, therefore," etc. (See Chap. IX.) 

William A. Smith, of Virginia, insisted on insert- 
ing the names of the two guilty individuals. " Let 
them be brought forth In all the length and breadth 
of their damning iniquity," said he. But that prop- 



94 Antislateet Struggle and Triumph. 

osition was lost, for tlieir exposure to IjJIlicAi law was 
feared by some if they became known to the public. 

]N^oah Levings censured the recklessness of those 
brethren who had lectured upon and agitated this 
miserable subject. 

G. C. Light, of Missouri, thought the state of feel- 
ing too high for deliberate action. He was willing 
to condemn abolitionism, but could not subscribe to 
every expression of the resolutions. He wished to 
refer them. 

H. G. Lehigh, of Yirginia, opposed the reference. 
It would waste time. 

L. Grant, of Genesee, favored it. He could not 
find it in his heart to grind the Abolitionists down. 
He was not an Abolitionist. But Abolitionists had 
been misrepresented as to their motives, designs, and 
ultimate objects. 

S. G. Eoszel, of. Maryland, would not say that 
Abolitionists had bad motives. But he would take a 
strong and decided course with them. JN'othing else 
would do for such people ; for they had pledged 
themselves in the most sacred and solemn manner to 
prosecute their object, and they seemed by their 
earnestness to think they were doing God service. 
JSTo language in the resolutions was any too strong for 
them. 

Laban Clark, of 'New York, thought that the reso- 
lutions embraced more than the circumstances of the 
case called for. Lie also questioned the power of the 
Conference to censure its members. 

Mr. Payne, of Alabama, said : '' Can it be possible 
tliat such authority can be denied to the highest tri- 
bunal of the Church — to censure the conduct of its 
own members when that becomes ofEensive, crim- 



Antislavery Agitation, 1S35, 1836. 95 



iiial?" At this, P. P. Sandford, of :N'ew York, 
called Mr. Payne to order, as such epithets should 
not be used against our brethren. The speaker con- 
tinued : "It would seem that nothing can cure them. 
The Abolitionists stop at nothing. Thej persist, not- 
withstanding the impediments they are continually 
encountering in popular hatred and persecutions." 

Dr. Elliott, of Pittsburgh, wished to amend so as to 
declare it to be highly imprudent for any of the 
members to deliver lectures on abolition during its 
session. 

D. Young, of Ohio, was opposed to any amendment. 

T. CiOwder, of Virginia, would have the resolu- 
tions pass in their present form as the most beneficial 
disposition of the matter. 

Messrs. Storrs and Morris both said that had the 
"two members" known the sentiments of the Gen- 
eral Conference in relation to their attendance at the 
meeting before they had promised to be present at it, 
they would have taken a different course. Dr. 
Elliott's amendment was lost. Some impatience was 
manifested by several at the delay, and immediate 
adoption urged. But the dimensions of the question 
were extending far beyond the personal aspects first 
presented, and the whole subject of slavery and eman- 
cipation were yet to be discussed. The number of 
the Abolitionists were small. Their cause proved to 
be too immense to be easily managed by their ojDpo- 
nents, who outnumbered them ten to one. 

Orange Scott, of the [N'ew England Conference, ob- 
tained the floor, and commenced a calm and dispas- 
sionate examination of the resolutions. An eye-Avit- 
ness * says : " He began by asking the patience of the 
* James G. Birney, Editor " Philanthropist," Cincinuati 



96 Antislayeky Struggle and Teiumph. 

members, as he would probably, by consent, do the 
principal part of the speaking on behalf of the Abo- 
litionists in the Conference. It was a noble effort — 
calm, dignified, generous, Christian. He showed no 
waspishness nor petulance toward those who differed 
with him, and who had been so prodigal in their repro- 
bation of Abolitionists. He was several times inter- 
rupted by his impatient adversaries, yet his calmness 
and self-possession were in no measure disturbed even 
for a moment. The dignity of the exj^erienced de- 
bater, understanding his subject in all its aspects, 
calmly taking up the admissions of his opponents and 
routing them with the very weajDons their own un- 
acquaintance with the subject and their intemperate 
passion had so abundantly supplied, directing them 
all with consummate skill, yet with the kindness and 
forbearance of the Christian — in all these essentials 
of religious discussion Mr. Scott presented himself in 
striking and honorable contrast with nearly all, if not 
all, who supported the resolutions." 

Mr. Scott's report of his own remarks may be briefly 
stated thus : 

^' Mr. President : Before condemning modern 
abolitionism, this Conference would do well to hear 
patiently the opinion of its friends as to what it is 
and to wdiat it stands related. Plainly, then, it j)i"0- 
poses to abolish slavery, an acknowledged evil in our 
Church, which has always contemplated its extirpa- 
tion as a legitimate work for Methodists to do. The 
principle of slavery, which justifies holding and treat- 
ing the human species as property, is morally wrong ; 
its j^ractice is a sin. Aside from all circumstances, 
the principle is evil, only evil, and that continually. 
It is a reprobate, too bad to be converted, not ^subject 



AxTisLAVEKY Agitation, 1835, 183G. 07 

to the law of God, neither indeed could it be. Cir- 
cninsstances might palliate or aggravate, bnt conld not 
justify it. The views of slavery held by modern 
Abolitionists were shown to be identical with those 
held by Wesley, by the fatliers of Methodism, and 
onr Wesleyan brethren of England from numerous 
quotations. The peace of the Church, which is dis- 
turbed by agitating these views of slavery, ought to 
be broken. It may not, perhaps, be always best that 
the Churcli be at peace. There may be 'ease in 
Zion ' connected with a wedge of gold and a Baby- 
lonish garment. The Methodist Episco23al Church 
has an unholy alliance with slavery ; she ought not, 
therefore, give herself any peace until she cleanses 
her skirts from blood-guiltiness. Shall the dearest 
interests of undying millions be sacrificed upon the 
altar of the peace of the Church ? 

'' An aged and venerable brother yesterday called 
the abolition excitement ' an unhallowed flame.' This 
expression has been several times repeated on this 
floor. Sir, this same unhallowed flame has burned 
olf the chains of eight hundred thousand slaves who 
were p'oods and chattels in the West India Islands, and 
elevated them to the i-ank of human beings. Aboli- 
tionism is one the world over. We are not trying an 
experiment, but walking in a beaten track. Our prin- 
ciples have been tested. We have no fear as to the 
results. The day of our own national jubilee may 
linger, but it will come at last, and it cannot tarry 
long. The fires of abolitionism are burning deep and 
wide ; the leaven of liberty is now working through 
the whole lump ; the axe is laid at the root of the 
tree ; the whole country is awake, and the day of our 
redemption is at hand I 
7 



v^ 



98 Antislayery Steuggle and Tkiumph. 

" Sir, one of onr brethren from Baltimore has told 
us that he came up here flush with the expectation 
that the brethren from the Xorth would put their 
foot on abolitionism and crush it ! HaYc our brethren 
yet to learn that free discussion is not to be put down 
in this way ? "When you can put your foot on one of 
the burning inountains and smother its fires ; when 
you can roll back the thundering Falls of ]N"iagara; 
when you can stop the sun in its course w^ith a word, 
you may crush abolitionism ! Sir, the die is cast. 
The days of the captivity of our bondmen are num- 
bered. Their redemption is written in heaven ! " 

Mr. Scott was replied to by Mr. Crowder, of Vir- 
ginia, and Mr. Winans, of Mississippi, who took high 
Southern ground in behalf of slavery. Dr. Capers 
narrated several circumstances showing the need of 
great prudence to prevent persecution, ilhistra- 
tive of the faithful labors of Southern preachers 
among the slav^es. An amendment by Mr. Scott, to 
disapprove of slavery as well as abolitionism, was dis- 
cussed, but rejected. After two daj^s' discussion the 
resolutions were adopted. Only fifteen negative 
votes were given. The wdiole abolition strength of 
the body was represented by the delegates from the 
'New England and Kew Hampshire Conferences and 
J. S. Barris, of Pittsburgh. 

In the " Christian Guardian," of Canada, Eev. 
"VYilliam Lord, wdio represented the English "Wesley- 
ans at the General Conference of 1836, said of this 
small band : " The Abolitionists were in a very small 
minority. Before another General Conference the 
case will be grea,tly altered. There I envied the po- 
sition in which Brother Orange Scott stood, making 
a firm stand against the monstrous evil, opposed by 



Antislavery Agitation, 1835, 1836. 99 

an overwlielming and influential majority. Bnt as in 
our country so in America — the storm will soon blow 
over and the question of emancipation become pop- 
ular." 

At the English Weslevan Conference in 1836 Pres- 
ident Bunting said : " Slavery is always wrong, essen- 
tially, eternally, and incurably wrong. Die it must ; 
and happy should I have been had the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church passed 
sentence of death upon it." So thought and felt 
many others of our trans- Atlantic brethren. But 
they knew very little about the magnitude of the 
struggle with slavery in America. 



100 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEE IX. 



THE almost unbroken silence of tlie Cliiirdi on 
slavery for many years, except its stereotyped 
official testimony, very mildly formnlated, and that 
not generally enforced, was suddenly and violently 
disturbed by tlie irrepressible agitation of the Abo- 
litionists. Their radical views were condemned by 
some of the largest Animal Conferences, and their 
methods and aims were repudiated with much greater 
zeal than slavery was by the same bodies. The JN'ew 
England Conferences, however, became identified 
with the Abolitionists jDrior to the General Confer- 
ence of 1836, which was held in Cincinnati. 

At that Conference the Southern members brought 
forward the name of Dr. Capers, a slave-holder, as 
their candidate for Bishop, but he was not elected. 
This they deemed and declared "a proscription" — 
" an insult ; " and on the evening of the day of elec- 
tion they held a meeting, whicli prepared the way for 
a circular, in July following, which recommended 
such concert of action as would induce the Church 
to recede from that " proscriptive position" in 1840. 
For the time, however, the Northern friends of slave- 
holding Methodists were fixed in their j)urpose not to 
favor slavery to the extent of electing a slave-holder 
for Bishop. They, therefore, elected three non-slave- 
holders to tlie Episcopacy — Beverly Waugh, of the 
South, and Dr. AYilbur Fisk and Tliomas Morris, of 



CONTEKENCE ACTION ON SlAVEKY, 1836-40. 101 

the I^ortli. Previous to the election of Bishops an 
expression had been given to the views held by the 
Conference on the subjects of slavery and abolition, 
which were accepted by the Soutliern men at the 
time as '' indicative of a determination on the part of 
the Methodist ministry throughout the Xorth not to 
interfere with the domestic institutions of the South." 
So said Rev. William A. Smith. 

The Report on Slavery said : " The committee to 
wdiom was referred sundry memorials from the Nortli, 
praying that certain rules on slavery, which formerly 
existed in our Book of Discipline, should be restored, 
and that the General Conference take such measures 
as they might deem proper to free the Church from 
the evil of slavery, beg leave to report, that they have 
had the subject under serious consideration, and are 
of the opinion that the prayer of the memorialists 
cannot be granted, believing that it would be highly 
improper for the General Conference to take any 
action that w^ould alter or change our rules on the 
subject of slavery." ^' Resolved^ That it is inexpe- 
dient to make any change in our Book of Discipline 
respecting slavery, and that we deem it improper to 
agitate the subject in the General Conference at pres- 
ent." This was adopted by a majority of nine tenths 
of the body. 

Following this, an occasion was found for the adop- 
tion of the two following resolutions — the first by 122 
yeas to 11 nays ; the second by 120 yeas to 14 nays — 
the last part of it unanimously : 

1. " Eesolved, by the delegates of the Annual Con- 
ference in General Conference assembled. That they 
disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the conduct 
of the two members of the General Conference who 



102 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

are reported to have lectured in this city recently, 
upon and in favor of modern abolitionism." 

2. " Be solved^ That they are decidedly opposed to 
modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, 
wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and polit- 
ical relation between master and slave as it exists in 
the slave-holding States of this Union." 

The fourteen prepared a protest, which was not 
allowed to be put on record. 

The Pastoral Address — prepared by a committee — 
signed by all the Bishops, and published by order of 
the General Conference, after treating of the legal 
barriers in the way of antislavery action, and the sup- 
posed evil effects of agitation, adds : " These facts 
constrain us, as your pastors, to exhort you to abstain 
from all abolition movements and associations, and to 
refrain from patronizing any of their publications. 
. . . Those of you who may have honest scruples as 
to the lawfulness of slavery considered as an abstract 
principle of right and wrong, if you must speak your 
sentiments, would do much better to express your- 
selves in those terms of respect and affection which 
evince a sincere sympathy for those of your brethren 
wdio are necessarily, and in some instances reluc- 
tantly, associated with slavery in the States where 
it exists, than to indulge in harsh censures and de- 
nunciations. . . . From every view of the subject 
which we have been able to take, and from the 
most calm and dispassionate survey of the whole 
ground, we have come to the solemn conviction, 
that the only safe, scriptural, and prudent way 
for us, both as ministers and people, is wholly to 
refrain from this agitating subject, which is now 
convulsing the country, and consequently the Chui^ch, 



Conference Action on Slavekt, 1836-40. 103 

from end to end." This advice, however, was not 
accepted bv all. 

The Baltimore Conference of 1837 resolved : " That 
in all cases of administration under the General Eule, 
in reference to buying and selling men, women, and 
children, etc., it be, and hereby is, recommended to 
all committees, as the sense and opinion of this Con- 
ference, that the said rule be taken, construed and 
understood, so as not to make the guilt or innocence 
of the accused to depend upon the simple fact of 
purchase or sale of any such slave or slaves, but upon 
the attendant circumstances of cruelty, injustice, or 
inhumanity on the one hand, or those of kind pur- 
poses and good intentions on the other, under which 
the transactions shall have been perpetrated." 

The Pittsburgh Conference of 1837 resolved: "That 
in the judgment of this Conference, all traffic in 
the souls and bodies of our fellow-men, under any 
circumstances which either originates or perpetuates 
slavery, is a direct violation, both of the spirit and 
letter, of our rule on this subject." 

The Genesee Conference of 1837 resolved: "That 
in the judgment of this Conference, our Discipline, 
in declaring that slavery is a great evil, is to be un- 
derstood as pronouncing, not upon its civil or polit- 
ical, so much as upon its moral character." This 
Conference repeated the declaration of the Pittsburgh 
Conference also. 

The Georgia Conference of 1837 said, by a unani- \^ 
mous vote : " Whereas^ There is a clause in the Dis- 
cipline of our Church which states that we are as 
much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery ; 
and, whereas, the said clause has been perverted by 
some, aud used in such a manner as to produce the 



104: Antislaveky Steuggle and Teiumph. 

impression that the Methodist Episcopal Church be- 
lieved slavery to be a moral evil ; therefore, Resolved^ 
1. That it is the sense of the Georgia Annual Con- 
ference that slavery, as it exists in the United States, 
is not a moral evil ; Resolved^ 2. That we view slavery 
as a civil and domestic institution, and one with which, 
as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, further 
than to ameliorate the condition of the slave, by en- 
deavoring to impart to him and his master the benign 
influence of Christ, and aiding both on their way to 
heaven." 

The South Caroliua Conference of 1838 said : "We 
hold that the subject of slavery in these United States 
is not one proper for the action of the Church, but is 
exclusively appropriate to the civil authorities; there- 
fore, Resolved^ That this Conference will not inter- 
meddle with it furtlier than to express our regret that 
it has ever been introduced, in any form, into any one 
of the judicatories of the Church." Dr. Capers, the 
mover, explained, that " if slavery were a moral evil, 
that is, sinful, the Church would be bound to take 
cognizance of it ; but our affirmation is, that it is not 
a matter for her jurisdiction, and, of course, not sin- 
ful." AYhercupon it was unanimously adopted. 

The General Conference of 1810 was advised of 
this state of things in the Church generally by the 
Address of the Bishops, who also say, ""We cannot 
withhold from you, at this eventful period, the solemn 
conviction of our minds that no new ecclesiastical 
legislation on the subject of slavery at this time will 
have a tendency to accomplish these most desirable 
objects," to wit : " Preserve the peace and unity of 
the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of 
the slave population, and advance generally in the 



Conference Action on Slavery, 1836-40. 105 

slave-holding community of our country the humane 
and hallowing influence of our holy religion." Yet, 
in view of " the different constructions to which the 
general rule on slavery had been subjected, and the 
variety of opinions entertained upon it, together with 
the conflicting acts of some of the Annual Confer- 
ences of the Xorth and South," the Bishops venture 
the opinion that it would "seem to require that a 
body having legitimate jurisdiction should express a 
clear and definite opinion, as a uniform guide to those 
to whom the administration of the Discipline is com- 
mitted." But no such opinion was expressed. 

Two subjects were brought before the Conference 
which led to action relating to the question of slavery. 
The first was the appeal of Silas Comfort from the 
decision of the Missouri Conference. Mr. Comfort 
had admitted negro testimony on the trial of a white 
man. This was declared by that Annual Conference 
to be maladministration, but considered in his case to 
be an error of judgment only, so that his character had 
been passed. He appealed from the decision that he 
had perpetrated any maladministration to the General 
Conference. The principal plea of the Annual Con- 
ference was, that colored testimony was received in 
no civil court in Missouri against a wdiite person. A 
motion to reafiirm this decision was lost. But a reso- 
lution was adopted by a vote of 74 to 46, " That it is 
inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher among 
us to permit colored persons to give testimony 
against wdiite persons in any State where they are 
denied that privilege in trials at law." A motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table by a vote of 76 to 42, 
and this became the law of the Church for four 
vears. 



lOG Antislaveky Struggle and Tiuumph. 

The other subject was introduced by a petition 
from the official members of "Westmoreland Circuit, 
Baltimore Conference, complaining that ordination 
was withheld from local preachers because they were 
slave-holders ; and thev prayed for a change or a con- 
struction of the rule which should allow of such ordi- 
nation, or that their circuit be set off to the Virginia 
Conference. This petition was referred. May 8, to a 
committee, Rev. H. B. Bascom, chairman, who re- 
ported June 3, near midnight, the following resolu- 
tion, which, with little examination, was adopted : 
" That under the provisional exception of the general 
rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the sim- 
ple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave 
property, in States and Territories where the laws do 
not admit of emancipation and permit the liberated 
slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to 
the election or ordination of ministers to the various 
grades of office known to the ministry of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, and cannot be considered as 
working any forfeiture of rights in view of such 
election or ordination." 

The conclusions reached, or the position the Church 
occupied, in 1840, may be thus summarized : Slavery 
was acknowledged to be a great evil, the extirjDation 
of which was inquired about, but not provided for in 
the Discipline of the Church. Whether it was a 
mxoral evil, or only a social and political evil, or merely 
a harmless, domestic institution, were questions upon 
which the Annual Conferences gave imcertain and 
conflicting testimony, while the General Conference 
declined to express any opinion, although advised to 
do so by the Bishops, and requested to do so by anti- 
slavery memorialists. The Conference, however, had 



Conference Action on Slavery, 1836-^0. 107 

in 1836 deliberately declared against " any change in 
the Book of Discipline respecting slavery," and against 
the " agitation of the snhject in the General Confer- 
ence ;" it had condemned abolitionism, and passed its 
disapprobation on two of its membei'S for '' speaking 
in favor thereof;" it had exhorted all the Church 
" Vvdiolly to refrain from " the agitating subject of 
slavery ; and now it had declared against receiving 
the testimony of the colored members of the Church 
against white persons where slavery forbade it ; and, 
finally, had characterized slave-holding as no barrier to 
ordination where freedom was forbidden by State law. 
Of that portion of these declarations made at the 
General Conference of Cincinnati, in 1836, an imme- 
diate and unfortunate use w^as made by a pronounced 
friend of slavery. Judge Lewis, of the State of 
Louisiana, wrote a pamj^hlet that was published the 
same year by the " Conservative Society of Louisiana." 
It was an argument to prove Jewish servitude and 
American slavery essentially the same, allowed by 
the divine law still in force under the Christian dis- 
pensation, and, therefore, not a sin. " In this," says 
the judge, "I am glad to find that I am sustained 
by the resolution of the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, passed in their late ses- 
sion at Cincinnati. In that body are many men of 
profound and extensive learning, w^ho are deeply 
versed in Scripture, and whose piety is as deep and 
sincere as that of any others to be found in any de- 
nomination of Christians whatever. Such men are 
competent to judge correctly in this if any men on 
earth are. But they do not condemn slavery as a 
sin, taken as it exists here. On the contrary, they 
imitate their divine Master by wholly disclaiming 



108 Antislaveky Stkuggee and Triumph. 

any riglit, wish, or intention to interfere in the rela- 
tion between master and slave, which they consider 
one of the established civil and political relations of 
society in our country. I cannot but consider this as 
an invaluable testimony in our favor. It is a testi- 
mony they could not have given if they had consid- 
ered that slavery, as it exists among us, is a sin." 

Three periods have now been compassed in the 
history of our Church : the preliminary period, when 
slavery was rooted and grounded in this country by 
European cupidity and avarice, long before the com- 
ing of the Wesleyan pioneers, and anterior to their 
organization in 1784 as an Episcopal Church ; the 
primary period, during which the fathers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church unsparingly denounced 
and vigorously legislated against slavery for twenty 
years ; and the subsequent period of toleration, during 
which their sons allowed and practiced slavery. This 
last reached its culmination with the General Confer- 
ence of 1840 in the action already noted, whose con- 
cessions in favor of slavery deeply mortified and sub- 
sequentl}^ awakened and aroused the Church to action. 
For there was even then an immense antislavery 
force in process of development, which was afterward 
unfolded within and without the ecclesiastical lines. 
The period of extirpation efforts had commenced 
already. 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-40. 109 



CHAPTEK X. 

METHODISM VERSUS ABOLITIONISM, 1836-1840. 

THE Methodist Episcopal Cliurcli, by the action 
of the General Conference of 1836, was arrayed 
against the views, objects, and measures of the mod- 
ern Abolitionists. It had also decided against any 
change of regulations touching slavery among its own 
members, and condenmed all furtlier agitation of the 
subject. Subordinate Conferences and executive and 
administrative officers recognized generally their ob- 
ligation to act in harmony with the General Confer- 
ence in these matters. The exceptional Conferences 
and individuals, who chose not to accept the advice 
of the Pastoral Address, " wholly to refrain " from 
antislavery action, as practically the law of the Cliurch, 
soon became aware of the odds against them in the 
struggle now commenced. 

The New England Conference of 1S36 appointed 
a committee on slavery and abolition, with instruc- 
tions to report early. The report was offered three 
days before tlie Conference adjourned, but the Bishop 
refused to allow it to be read until every thing else 
was done. It was read the last night at eleven 
o'clock, but P)ishop Iledding would not put a motion 
for its adoption unless it could be re-read and dis- 
cussed in detail, as some things in it he thought he 
could not approve. The ^N'ew Hampshire Confer- 
ence was deterred by these facts from attempting any 
a.ction. 



110 Antislaveey Steijggle akd Triumph. 

The following year numerous memorials came up 
from different parts of the New England Conference 
asking an expression on the subject of slavery. A 
committee, under the sanction of Bishop Waugh, in- 
formed a committee of Abolitionists that " the Bish- 
ops had consulted together and agreed to prevent, as 
far as possible, all Conference action on the subject ; 
that the Conference was not a legislative body, and 
the memorials could not be received ; that it Avas not 
Conference business ; that the proposed expression of 
antislavery views would unchristianize the South; 
that the General Conference had condemned abolition- 
ism, with other considerations of equal weight. The 
Bishop himself informed a committee, consisting of 
Timothy Merritt, O. Scott, Jotham Ilorton, La Roy 
Sunderland, and James Porter, that he should " decline 
to put to vote any question of reference on memorials 
which seek to keep up an excitement and produce 
agitation on topics which the wisdom and authority 
of the General Conference have sought to quiet and 
put to rest." On the Ittth of June, 1837, the memo- 
rials from the people were presented asking the Con- 
ference " to bear its solemn testimony against the 
great sin of slavery, and to memorialize the General 
Conference on the subject." The Bishop refused to 
put a motion to refer to a committee, refused an 
appeal to the Conference from his decision, declined 
to give an opinion as to whether the memorials had 
been received and were in possession of the Confer- 
ence, and refused to put a motion for the expression 
of an opinion by the Conference on that matter. 

At the New Hampshire Conference for 1837 an 
other of the Bishops stipulated six conditions for al- 
lowing the appointment of a committee on slavery, 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836— iO. Ill 

which the Conference refused to accept, and hence 
no antislavery action was taken. A motion which re- 
cited the action of the Baltimore Conference, (see 
Chap. YIII.) dissenting therefrom and disapproving of 
it, was also refused to be put by the same Bishop, be- 
cause it would bring the two Conferences into col- 
lision. 

To enforce more completely, and by argument show 
the propriety of, the line of i^oliey pursued by the 
Church against abolitionism, Bishop Hedding pre- 
pared an address on the subject, in answer to the 
questions, ''What right have any of our members to 
hold slaves ? Or, what right has the Church to allow 
them to hold slaves ? " He said : " Ov/ning or hold- 
ing a slave does not include exercising all the rights 
which the laws are sujDposed to give the master over 
the servant, but only sucli rights as are necessary for 
the good of the servant and the safety of the master, 
all the circumstances taken into the account. Now 
let us answer the C[uestion. The right to hold a slave 
is founded on this rule : ' Therefore all things what- 
soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them ; for this is the Law and the Proph- 
ets.' Matt, vii, 12. If no case can be found where a 
man can own a slave, and in that act obey this rule, 
then there is no case in which slave-owning can be 
justified. But if one case can be found where a man 
may hold a slave, and by the civil law own, and in 
that act obey this rule, then there may be ten such 
cases, or ten thousand. And that there are many 
such cases among our brethren I firmly believe. . . . 
And I am not authorized to be the instrument of 
passing Conference resolutions which even imply that 
they are all sinners." — Address to Oneida Conference. 



112 Antislayeky Struggle and Tkiumph. 

The Conferences were not prevented from con- 
demning abolitionism, as has already been noted, 
(Chap. YIII.) And, moreover, the Pittsbnrgh Confer- 
ence and the Genesee Conference for 1837 both an- 
tagonized the Baltimore Conference construction of 
the General Rule. And the Genesee Conference 
had, also, construed the great evil of slavery to be a 
moral, and not a political or social, evil — wliich the 
Georgia Conference was allowed to contradict squarely 
two months afterward. When, in 1838, the Xew 
England Conference desired to reiterate the w^ords of 
the Pittsburgh and Genesee Conferences of 1837, it 
was not allowed. So the conflict thickened. 

A yet more vigorous action was adopted by several 
of the Annual Conferences to put down abolitionism, 
which action, however, was remarkable mainly for the 
increased agitation of the slavery question which it 
occasioned, adding fuel to the flaming excitement that 
ultimately swept, like a prairie fire, over the whole 
land. It was a Are, soon under too much headway, 
too deep and broad, for the heaviest footfalls to 
stamp out. 

The New York Conference of 1836 promptly con- 
curred in the advice of the General Conference just 
preceding, and also ''^ Resolved^ That although we 
vrould not condemn any man, or withhold our suf- 
frages from him, on account of his 02:)inions merely 
in reference to the sul)ject of abolitionism, yet we are 
decidedly of the opinion tliat none ouglit to be 
elected to the oftice of a deacon or elder in our Church 
unless he give a pledge to the Conference that he 
will refrain from agitating the Church with discus- 
Bions on this subject." 

At the ensuing session, in 1837, Charles K. Tnie 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-40. 113 

was elected to elder's orders. The vote was reconsid- 
ered, liowev^er, and liis having read an address on 
slavery to his Church at Middletown, Conn., from tlie 
pen of the venerable Timothy Merritt, was urged by 
several leading ministers as a reason for denying him 
elders' orders. But, after consuming nearly all of 
one day in the discussion, he was re-elected by a large 
majority. The next year his character was arrested 
on the charge of " contumacy and insubordination." 
The specifications were : 1. Violation of his pledge on 
slavery at the last Conference ; 2. Aiding in the pub- 
lication of an antislavery tract ; 3. Attending an anti- 
slavery convention at Utica. Luther Lee, of the 
Black Biver Conference, was his counsel, and de- 
fended him in a speech of great power. The trial 
lasted two days, and resulted in Ins suspension from 
all the functions of a gospel minister, by a vote of 
ninety-one to thirty-seven. He appealed to the next 
General Conference. The next day, however, he sent 
into the Conference a pledge to abide by its decisions 
on the subject of slavery while he continued a mem- 
ber of the body, and refrain from such action as it 
would forbid ; whereupon the suspension was re- 
moved — not, however, until he had promised to with- 
draw from the American Antislavery Society. 

At the same session of the iSTew York Conference 
(1838) James Floy w^as tried on the same charge and 
similar specifications. Lie had acted publicly against 
slavery, and attended an antislavery convention. He 
was found guilty by a vote of 124 to 17, and sus- 
pended from the office of a deacon ; 102 for, 31 
against. The next day he also pledged to abide the 
decisions of the Conference on slavery, and the sus- 
j^ension was taken off by a vote of 127 to 1. 
8 



114 AnTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AND TlirUMPH. 

Paul R. Brown was arraigned and tried at tlie same 
time the above-named brethren were, on the same 
charge, for attending the Utica Convention. Before 
the committee he manfully asserted his purpose to do 
all he could to oppose slavery and promote abolition- 
ism. The committee reported "that he be required 
to refrain wholly from this agitating subject ; that he 
be publicly reproved by the Bishop, and that he be 
not appointed preacher in charge, but in a subordi- 
nate station, with some one over him." This was 
adopted. He made a noble defense, sketching fully 
the pro-slavery action of various Conferences and 
leading men, as a good and sufficient reason for hold- 
ing antislavery conventions in the Church, and a 
justification of his attendance and co-operation with 
them. He concluded his defense in the followino^ 
dignified and Christian manner : "I have taken my 
stand, and cannot go back. I am not ambitious. I 
feel it a solemn duty. I must stand if alone and all 
the world against me. I can bear to be censured ; 
it may do me good. I am willing to be admonished 
by any one, anywhere. As to having charge of a cir- 
cuit or station, I do not wish it. I never felt worthy 
of it, and think wiser and better men should be j^laced 
there. But as for pledging not to discuss the subject, 
I never can do it. If you think you must censure or 
suspend or expel me, why, you must take your course, 
and I must bear it. But I feel it to be my duty to . 
plead for the slave, and I must have the liberty." 

He was publicly rebuked by the Bishop, and his 
appointment was in a distant field, where he suffered 
much inconvenience and many privations. Special 
contributions during the year were made by personal 
friends among the Abolitionists to meet his necessities. 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-40. 115 



..^, 



The Pittsburgh Conference resolution of 1838 was 
practically reaffirmed the following year by refusing 
to rescind it, with this construction : that the delivery 
of a single lecture, or lending an abolition book or 
paper, was a violation of it, and that a brother so 
offending, after admonition, could have no more place 
among us as a traveling Methodist preacher. The 
case of Goodsill Buckingham was then taken up, a 
probationer of one year's standing, who had delivered 
two lectures against slavery. His presiding elder and 
colleague represented him to be " deeply pious, habit- 
ually serious, greatly devoted to his work, possessing 
far more than ordinary talent and education, and ex- 
ceedingly anxious to continue and give himself wholly 
to God and his work." His address to the Confer- 
ence, says the venerable Eobert Boyd, was marked 
by great self-possession and a truly amiable manner. 
Such was the ability manifested on this occasion, that 
his warmest opposere admitted that he was no ordi- 
nary man. But he was firm to his purpose, and re- 
fused to pledge himself wholly to refrain from the 
agitating subject, and was di^opped from the traveling 
ministry by a vote of 49 to 29. He took his place 
among the laymen of the Church, a monument of 
personal integrity, and a constant memorial of mis- 
taken Church policy, seen and lamented when too 
late for correction in his case. 

Edward Smith, also of the Pittsburgh Conference, 
a minister of twenty years' standing, was, in 1840, 
brought to trial under this resolution he had helped 
to frame and 23ass. The relation of persons and ]3rop- 
ositions Avere now beginning to change. More ene- 
mies of abolitionism became its friends than contrary- 
wise. The formulas of charges, moreover, were more 



116 Antislaveey Steuggle and Tkiumph. 

guardedlj expressed. Mr. Sinitli was charged with 
" giving publicity to things respecting the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the ministry which are highly 
slanderous in their character ;" and '' encouraging a 
spirit of rebellion in others, and violating his own 
ordination vows, by declaring that he would not take 
an appointment in Virginia if the Bishop were to 
send him there." The "things" given publicity to 
were such facts as have been recited in the former 
chapters of this history on the connection of the 
Church and ministry with slavery. The declared 
purpose not to take an appointment in Virginia was 
admitted, and defended on the ground that he was a 
member and officer of an antislavery society, and con- 
scientiously bound to express his views of slavery 
wherever appointed. This would subject him to the 
penalty of the following law of Virginia, passed 
^ March 23, 1836 : " That any member of an abolition 
or antislavery society who shall come into this State, 
and shall maintain, by speaking or writing, that the 
owners of slaves have no property in the same, or advo- 
cate or advise the abolition of slavery, shall be deemed 
guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof 
shall be fined in a sum of not less than lifty dollars 
nor more than two hundred dollars, and suffer a term 
of imprisonment of not less than six months nor more 
tlian three years, at the discretion of the jury." Both 
charges were sustained, and "Kev. E. Smith was sus- 
pended from all official relation to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church until he shall give this Conference 
satisfactory evidence of repentance and reformation." 
The Erie Conference of 1838 had adopted a resolu- 
tion forbidding abolition lectures, similar to that of 
the Pittsburgli Conference, for violating which Ben- 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-40. 117 

jamin Preston was suspended for one year from his 
ministerial office. In his case it was proved also that 
he said hard things about the suspensions effected at 
the Xew York Conference as inquisitorial persecu- 
tion with Satan at the bottom of it. 

J. S. Barris, a presiding elder of the Erie Confer- 
ence, was, in 1838, arraigned upon the charge of 
" Insubordination to the authorities of the Church," 
in 1. Disobeying the advice of the General Confer- 
ence. 2. Contempt of the Erie Conference, by get- 
ting up and presiding in an abolition meeting, and 
delivering an abolition lecture in the Presbyterian 
Church on Sabbath evening, under pretense of preach- 
ing a gospel sermon. 3. Giving leave to a pastor on 
his district to attend the Abolition Convention at 
Utica, N. Y. The Conference adopted a vote of re- 
gret, and directed an admonition from the Bishop, 
further requesting him to desist from such conduct. 

The Philadelphia Conference from 1837 for ten 
years put the question to candidates for admission : 
"Are you an Abolitionist?" and without each one 
answered in the negative he was not received. The 
author was thus questioned by that Conference, and 
was not received in 1837 and 1838. And the "Pas- 
toral Address," by the Philadelphia Conference for 
1847, affirmed it to be the rule then. E"or was that 
Conference singular. Others carried out the same 
rule. A detailed statement of such cases in many 
Conferences, duly authenticated, is within reach, but is 
perhaps unnecessary in this connection, which would 
show a loss to Methodism of a large number of really 
valuable young ministers, whose only fault was to 
have been Abolitionists too early in the day of the 
great struggle with slavery. 



118 AnTISL AVERY StEUGGLE AND TeITJMPH. 

The attitude of the antiabolition Conferences, and 
their action against the Abolitionists, were generally 
assumed by the Quarterly Conferences toward their 
members, and by pastors toward the leaders of the 
classes, within the bounds of all such Annual Confer- 
ences. The purpose was fixed ; the means of accom- 
plishing it seemed for awhile equal to the task as- 
sumed ; but suppressing the Methodist antislavery 
agitation by silencing the agitators was not the mis- 
sion of the Methodist Episcopal Church.* Her work 
was " the extirpation of slavery ! " To have turned 
aside from that purpose for a time, was her great 
mistake. To undertake another task and so signally 
fail, was her sad misfortune. To become again the 
old-time friend of " African liberty," was her destiny. 

* Note. — Letter of Cyrus Frindle, D.B. 

My Brother : — No one who was not a participant in the ecclesias- 
tical proceedings in the Methodist Episcopal Church from 1835 to 
1840 can have an adequate idea of the embarrassments and sufferings 
of the Abolitionists in those years of terrorism. What I have seen 
and experienced in my connection with the antislavery cause is full 
enough for one life ; and what I could not be tempted to endure again, 
especially needlessly, by all the gold in the treasuries of earth, 

I will soon close my fourscore years of life, but the memory of 
events connected with this struggle, which with others I commenced 
fifty-five years ago, is clear and fresh with me now. The struggle and 
conflict in the Church that was the most trying and severe began about 
1834. Thirty years of the vigorous part of my Hfe I have battled with 
this Church sin, through " evil report and good report," until I have 
the unfeigned satisfaction of not only seeing this huge evil abolished 
in the nation, but of welcoming the fact that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was never constitutionally pro-slavery. 

When I became acquainted with the fact, over fifty years ago, that 
slavery had an existence of some sort in the Church, my surprise can- 
not be expressed. But I was assured that none held slaves, only those 
who held them by devisement and could not avoid this relation ; and 
that no difference of sentiment existed in the Church in relation to 



Methodism versus Abolitionism, 1836-40. 119 

the evil. When, at a later period, the facts were developed that 
members of all classes in the Church held slaves and traded in them, 
I was struck dumb and confounded, hardly believing it was possible 
for it to be true. 

Beginning with the loss of antislavery principle, as indicated by a 
relaxation of disciplinary testimony and practice during a period of 
thirty years, followed up by a vigorous accumulation of slave-power, 
the way was prepared for an exercise of proscriptive power otherwise 
utterly impossible. The Pastoral Letter of 1835 is one example. At 
the New Hampshire Conference of that year, Bishop Emory refused to 
put to vote a report against slavery which had been prepared by a 
committee authorized by the Conference so to do ; yet he had put to 
vote a series of antiabolition resolutions a few days before at the 
Maine Conference. 

In the spring of 1839, in agreement with Bishop Hedding, I conveyed 
him from Western Vermont to the seat of the New Hampshire Con- 
ference, which was held in the extreme part of the State. As we rode 
together alone in my carriage, and were in each other's company for 
two weeks, and as the most cordial intimacy and friendship existed 
between us, the subjects of slavery. Conference rights, and episcopal 
prerogatives, were discussed and elaborated extensively. At the open- 
ing of the Conference a brother moved to have a committee on slavery. 
The Bishop paused and hesitated ; but the request was pressed. He 
finally consented, but gave the Conference to understand that the 
report must be of a qualified character, or he should not consent to its 
adoption. I was invited to meet with the committee. Many things 
were said in relation to the assumption of the Bishop, and among 
others, John F. Adams, one of the most venerable and influential men 
of the Conference, said : " If the Bishop refuses to put our report to 
vote, I will rise in my seat and put it to vote myself." 

I saw a storm was gathering, and said to the committee : "I will 
take the responsibility of pledging the Bishop to treat your report on 
slavery as he does others." I saw the Bishop during the day, and told 
him substantially what had occurred, and that I had pledged him to 
receive and treat that report as he did others ; and he said he would 
honor my pledge, and so he did. The Bishop frankly acknowledged 
that I had rendered him much service during the session, and seemed 
thankful for it. 

For no man during my entire life have I cherished a stronger regard 
than for Bishop Hedding. But that he was wrong in his views and 
ofiicial administration in relation to the slavery question, I never 
doubted for a moment. He told Merritt Bates in 1842, while pastor of 



120 AnTISL AVERT STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

North Second-street Church, Troy, N. Y., that he was liable to be 
arrested, censured, located, or expelled, for no other crime than 
preaching that slave-holding was sinful under all circumstances. 

In the New York, Erie, and Pittsburgh Conferences, measures were 
adopted and discipline enforced against ministers of these bodies for 
no other cause than their advocacy of such views and attendance 
upon antislavery conventions. An attempt was made to adopt similar 
measures in the Troy Conference in 1838, where I held my member- 
ship. But a few of us had the responsibility and the honor of con- 
fronting the measures brought forward, and we showed most tri- 
umphantly that the prohibition of antislavery action by Conference 
resolutions, which were attempted to be forced upon us, were in direct 
opposition to the whole history of Methodism. And I for one declared 
that I would trample them in the dust if they were adopted. I never 
had been so abused and honored up to this time in my life as on this 
occasion. I was told that Bishop Morris, who presided, said that the 
Abolitionists adhered closer to the Methodist Episcopal Discipline than 
their opponents. Whether he said so or not, it was true ; and, thank 
God ! we conquered. The early Abolitionists of the Church main- 
tained from the first that the old Rule on Slavery was, by a fair con- 
struction, a prohibition of slave-holding, and that it placed the Church 
upon strictly antislavery ground. C. Prindle. 

Cleveland, Ohio, February 7, 1880. 

To L. C. Matlack. 



The Controveksy Reviewed. 121 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 

BETWEEi^ the very equivocal position occupied 
by the Church at the opening of the modern 
antislavery movement and the position afterward 
maintained until the final triumph of liberty through- 
out all the land, there was a wide field of controversy 
to be traversed. The parties engaged in that strife 
employed words often which were harder than their 
arguments. The epithets need not be recalled. A 
faithful review of the course of reasoning pursued by 
the Abolitionists and their opponents respectively is 
essential to a correct history. The disputants, how- 
ever, will be designated only as the Abolitionists and 
the Conservatives of the Church. 

The oflicial papers were not open to the Abolition- 
ists for several years from 1835 onward. " Zion's 
Herald," of Boston, was their first medium of publi- 
cation. Afterward " Zion's Watchman," of New 
York city, was published as a special organ of the 
Methodist antislavery men, from "January 1, 1836. 
The " Wesley an Journal," of Hallo well, Maine ; the 
"American Wesleyan Observer," edited by O. Scott 
and J. Horton, of Lowell, Mass. ; and the " 'New En- 
gland Christian Advocate," of Lowell, Luther Lee, 
editor, were, at different periods, largely occupied 
with the early antislavery discussion. But the lead- 
ing journal was the " Watchman," La Roy Sunder- 
land, editor. 



122 Antisl AVERY Steuggle and Tetumph. 

The prominent early abolition writers were : La 
Roy Sunderland, Orange Scott, George Storrs, Pliin- 
eas Crandal, Joseph A. Merrill, Timothy Merritt, 
Frederick P. Tracy, Jotham Horton, Gershom F. Cox, 
James Porter, Luther Lee, Jonathan D. Bridge, 
Charles Adams, Cyrus Prindle, Daniel Wise, Robert 
Boyd. 

Among the early conservative writers were : Dr. 
Fisk, Professor Whedon, Dr. N. Bangs, Dr. Durbin, 
Dr. S. Luckey, Pev. Amos Binney, Bishop Hedding, 
Bishop Emory, Dr. Bond. These had the advantage 
of position, were w^ell intrenched inside the lines, 
and acted on the defensive mainly ; while their more 
numerous antagonists were the assailants from the 
open field, and did not always move in concert nor 
dress uj) on the same line of battle. But the struggle 
was well sustained by them respectively during an 
almost " seven years' war " of words. 

The propositions which were affirmed by the Abo- 
litionists and denied by the Conservatives may be all 
briefly stated, thus : All slave-holding is sinful. ISlo 
slave-holder should be retained in the communion of 
the Christian Church. The Methodist Ej^iscopal 
Church is largely responsible for the continuance of 
slavery in the United States. Tlie Discipline of the 
Church should be <> changed so as to exclude all slave- 
holders. Immediate and unconditional emancipation 
is the duty of every slave-holder and the right of 
every slave. All rights are for all men. Annual 
and Quarterly Conferences have the right to adopt 
antislavery testimonies. Methodist antislavery con- 
ventions and antislavery societies in the Church are 
necessary, lawful, and effective instrumentalities for 
the extirpation of slavery. 



The Controyersy Eeyiewed. 123 

The Abolitionists emphasized the facts that slavery 
in the United States originated in man-stealing in 
Africa ; chattelized manhood ; perpetrated the crime 
of stealing human beings by enslaving every child 
born of slaves ; and, therefore, insisted that slavery 
was the sin of oppression which is so unequivocally 
and ■Qniversally denounced in the Bible. 

The Conservatives replied that the Old Testament 
recognized the patriarchs as owning servants or slaves, 
Y'ho became snch by purchase or by being born in 
their house ; that laws regulating the purchase of 
servants or slaves were divinely authorized ; and that 
the 'New Testament nowhere forbade either the own- 
ing or purchasing of slaves, but recognized both 
Chi'istian masters and their Christian slaves as united 
in fellowship in the Grecian Churches. 

The Abolitionists quoted the original Methodist 
testimonies against all slave-holding ; their subsequent 
modifications, and the repeal of antislavery statutes ; 
the abandonment of early systematic plans of agita- 
tion for emancipation ; the opposition to modern 
abolitionism, and the toleration of the practice of slave- 
holding in the private membership from 1808 onward, 
as evidence of present responsibility for slavery. 

The Conservatives answered that the original rules 
were abandoned after six months' trial had proved 
them to be im^Dracticable and unwise ; that the modi- 
fications made were the dictation of Christian pru- 
dence, and within the limits of actual necessity ; that 
the abandonment of the plan of memorializing State 
Legislatures was only a change of methods ; that 
modern abolitionism was an enemy to the peace and 
unity of both Church and State ; and that Methodist 
slave-holders were allowed to be such only so fai^ as 



124 Aktislayeky Struggle and Teiumph. 

the good of the slave and the safety of the master re- 
quired that the relation be continued for a time, with- 
out violating the law of love or the golden rule. 

The Abolitionists argued that the j^erpetual rule 
against "buying and selling men, women, and chil- 
dren," and the ever-recurring inquiry, "What shall 
be done for the extirpation of slavery ? " were un- 
meaning formulas without providing also for the 
actual prohibition of all slave-holding, and the exclu- 
sion of all Methodist slave-holders from the Church. 

The Conservatives challenged anew the doctrine 
that slave-holding was in itself a sin under all circum- 
stances, and urged the injustice of applying a new 
test of membership to those who had already been 
recognized as worthy Christian communicants for 
many years. 

The Abolitionists insisted on instant repentance 
and full restitution as God's law for sinners, slave- 
holders included ; while the Conservatives favored 
gradual emancipation as necessary both to the safety 
of the master and the good of the slave, with the pro- 
viso that compensation was due the former for loss of 
property value in the slave if emancipated. 

The Abolitionists demanded that all men should be 
equals before the law, without discrimination on ac- 
count of color or previous condition, in respect to 
natural rights and political privileges. The Conserv- 
atives, on the contrary, favored preparing the slave 
for freedom by a system of tutelage, and then not to 
make the right of suffrage universal. 

The Abolitionists claimed that the primitive usages 
of the Annual and Quarterly Conferences had estab- 
lished a precedent equivalent to an ecclesiastical right 
to testify against slavery. The Conservatives dis- 



The Controversy Reviewed. 125 

claimed all inherent rights for the Conferences, and 
regarded them as strictly confined to the business as- 
signed tliem by the General Conference. This view 
was sustained by the highest executive authorities. 

The Abolitionists, therefore, fell back upon their 
individual riglit and duty as Christians to organize 
local societies and hold voluntary conventions for the 
discussion of the question of slavery, and for adopt- 
ing antislavery measures in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. But the Conservatives earnestly opposed 
such societies and conventions in the Church as irreg- 
ular and unauthorized, besides being necessarily revo- 
lutionary and schismatic in their influence and tend- 
ency. 

Not that each individual of the respective parties 
held every view here introduced to notice ; but all 
these views were entertained and canvassed by one 
or another of the disputants. The discussion, which 
first consisted of articles in the newspa2:)ers already 
enumerated, afterward was embodied in the form of 
circulars, pamphlets, and small volumes. Meanwhile 
it was transferred to Methodist antislavery conven- 
tions, and thence scattered through the Church in the 
addresses and reports issuing therefrom. 

The first Methodist Antislavery Convention was held 
in the Methodist Episco2:)al Church at Cazenovia, Xew 
York, August 3, 1837, of which Rev. Schuyler Iloes, 
Rev. Joseph Cross, and other prominent ministers and 
laymen, were members and participated in the discus- 
sions. Another convention of antislavery laymen 
was held at New York Mills, which was largely at- 
tended, August 16, 1837. It was severely denuncia- 
tory of the authorities of the Church, and adopted 
resolutions too radical for the convention at Caze- 



126 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

novia. And jet another convention was held at Lynn, 
Mass., October 25, which discussed the subject of 
^' Conference rights." 

The second large convention was held at Utica, 
N. y., May 2 and 3, 1838, and was attended by 
delegates chosen by Conference and local societies 
from within many of the non-slaveholding States. 
The venerable Timothy Merritt, who was editor of 
the " Christian Advocate," with Dr. Durbin, from 
1832 to 1836, called the convention to order. The 
permanent officers were Jared Perkins, of New 
Hampshire, president ; Seth Spragne, of Massachu- 
setts, vice-president. La Roy Sunderland, Wilbur 
Hoag, of ISTew York, and James Porter were secre- 
taries. Kev. James Floy and Rev. Charles K. True 
were prominent members. Pev. Orange Scott 
preached a sermon at the opening of the convention 
from Isaiah's words, " Cry aloud, spare not ; lift up 
thy voice like a trumpet." Isa. Iviii, 1. 

An address was prepared to be presented to the 
English Wesleyan Conference. Orange Scott and 
Luther Lee were chosen delegates to represent the 
Methodist Abolitionists of America before that body 
and the Canada Wesleyan Conference, Luther Lee 
visited the latter Conference the ensuing summer. 
The venerable president, in a private interview, said 
to him : " We are with the Abolitionists in prin- 
ciples, and tliey may rest assured of our sympathies 
and prayers ; but it would be improper to receive 3^ou, 
in a Conference capacity, as an antislavery delegate, 
lest it should disturb the friendly relations between 
the two bodies." Prom considerations growing out 
of these circumstances. Orange Scott was deterred 
from prosecuting his mission to England. But the 



The Controversy Reviewed. 127 

influence of the convention, directly, and tlie antago- 
nism it developed, indirectly, in several Annual Con- 
ferences, united to propel the antislavery agitation 
wider and deeper throughout the Church. 

A third general convention was held ISTovember 
21, 22, 1838, in Lowell, Mass., pursuant to a call first 
issued by Rev. James Porter, and afterward signed by 
nearly fifteen hundred names. Of this body Rev. 
Joseph A. Merrill was president; Timothy Merritt 
was first vice-president ; La Roy Sunderland, Elihu 
Scott, and L. C. Matlack, secretaries. The unfriendly 
criticisms of the ofiicial Methodist papers, from the 
hands of conservative writers, upon these conventions, 
did not prevent their being powerful agencies for ex- 
tending the antislavery sentiment very rapidly. And 
to the immediate actors and witnesses they were oc- 
casions of deep and thrilling interest. Convictions of 
duty to God and the slave, which were not allowed 
expression in the Conferences, there found utterance 
and opportunity for action. Individual ministers, 
who in some instances stood almost alone in strong 
antiabolition bodies, there found congenial associates 
and warm sympathy, which inspired them with 
needed courage when they returned home and were 
arraigned and treated as offenders for having been 
present at these conventions. And no seasons of 
w^orship were more solemn and intensely emotional 
and spiritual than the prayer-meetings held daily, 
when for the slave and the master and the Church 
good men j^oured forth strong cries and tears. The 
recollection of them by the writer stands out among 
the most vivid and pleasant memories of the past. 
Furthermore, the crowded audiences, the rapt atten- 
tion, the logic of truth, and the eloquence of freedom 



128 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

tliat characterized these occasions, evidenced the 
strength of feehng and conviction that was increasing 
constantly, with certain prospect of nhimatelj over- 
coming all opposition. 

It was indeed a great discussion, not free from ex- 
travagances of expression, nor faultless on either side, 
but fruitful of good in disturbing the stagnant waters 
of public lethargy, and in clearing the way for a final 
controversy that settled all disputed points on slavery 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



PkOGKESS PaSTOUAL LETTEli OF 1840. 129 



CHAPTEK XXL 

PEOSECUTIONS PKOGKESS PASTOKAL LETTEK OF 1840. 

THE increase of antislaveiy feeling, and sentiment 
in liarmonj with the Abolitionists, was mani- 
fested at the sessions of the Annual Conferences com- 
ing after the conventions of 1838, and prior to the 
General Conference of 1840 at Baltimore. Numer- 
ous smaller -conventions were held in 1838-1839, 
which aided to develop these results. Apposite to 
the matter before mentioned is the action of the 
I^ew Hampshire Conference for 1838, at Danville, 
which '-^Resolved^ That it is the sense of this Confer- 
ence that an attendance on the part of any of its 
members on abolition conventions, delivering aboli- 
tion lectures, or circulating abolition periodicals, does 
not involve immorality, or militate against his minis- 
terial character." Bishop Morris allowed an apj)eal 
from his decision that the resolution was not in order, 
and then put it to vote, afterward recording his ex- 
ceptions thereto. Hereby was marked a turn in the 
tide of affairs — a relaxation in the exercise of Episco- 
pal prerogative. 

Unfortunate prosecutions of prominent Abolition- 
ists were instituted before their Conferences, by chief 
ministers in the Church, for words spoken or written 
in debate, which in the main, however, promoted the 
spread of abolitionism, and will be briefly noted. 

At the Xew England Conference for 1837, held in 
Kantucket, Bishop Hedding addressed the Confer- 
9 



130 Antislayeey Struggle a^s'd TKirMPH. 

ence in relation to certain letters wliich had been pub- 
lished in the ""Watchman," by Rev. O. Scott, impli- 
cating his official conduct. His remarks were read 
from mannscript, and took him four hours to deliv- 
er. It was a document of great weight, ingeniously 
planned and well written, arguing the law-points of 
the Episcopal administration, and showing wherein 
he personally had been misrepresented. He was fol- 
lowed by two members of the Conference presenting 
charges against Rev. O. Scott, which were tabled. 

The reply of Mr. Scott went into an examination 
of these points, and of the alleged misrepresentations, 
some of which last were confessed and corrected pub- 
licly afterward. He said : " I am convinced that my 
letters contain a number of statements which are 
erroneous and injurious to the reputation of Bishop 
Hedding." After specifying and retracting, he says : 
" I will only add, that I have now, and always have 
had, unlimited confidence in Bishop Hedding's moral 
integrity, purity of motive, and general character for 
fair and impartial administration — though we differ, 
and agree to differ, on the question of Conference 
rights and the powers of Bishops." The charges 
above named v^ere not taken from the table. 

The next year the Bishop again presented to the 
Conference formal charges, founded upon subsequent 
utterances by Mr. Scott, which were not sustained. 
The case was appealed to the General Conference en- 
suing, there referred to a committee, but afterward 
withdrawn by the Bishop in the interests of peace. 

At the New England Conference for 1836 charges 
were preferred against La Roy Sunderland for " re- 
peated instances of slanderous misrepresentation." 
Dr. N. Bangs was prosecutor. The evidence con- 



Progress — Pastoral Letter of 1810. 131 

sis ted mainly of matters relating to tlie question of 
slavery. One specification was sustained, but the 
charge was negatived by a two-thirds vote. At the 
session for 1837 the same prosecutor presented the 
charges of slander and falsehood against Mr. Sun- 
derland, with the same result — not sustained. Mr, 
Sunderland was also tried again in 1838, and acquitted, 
at the time Pev. O. Scott was, wdien both cases were 
appealed. Again, in 1839, charges were preferred 
against him, on behalf of the 'Ne^Y York Annual 
Conference, represented by Dr. Bangs and Pev. T. 
Hodgson, of which he was acquitted. Finally, a 
committee in .New York City proceeded, against his 
protest, in his absence, convicted him, and declared 
him suspended from the ministry until the ensuing 
session of the 'New England Conference for 181:0, 
when the ^proceedings were set aside. A new bill 
of accusations was then and there presented by Pev. 
C. A. Davis, of the New York Conference. One 
item charged Mr. Sunderland with having slandered 
Bishop Soule. The Bisho^D was reported, in 1839, to 
have said, at Washington, Pa., " I have never yet 
advised the liberation of a slave, and think I never 
shall." He also had said that he had advised a slave- 
holder, who consulted him, not to free his slaves. 
This was the occasion of a severe criticism, in verse, 
by a lady correspondent, which Mr. Sunderland pub- 
lished in the " Watchman " wdth the remark, that 
"every word of it was justified." The offensive char- 
acter of the words will be judged by a quotation : 

*' Receive this truth — deep, dark thy stain; 
Thy very soul is tinged witli blood; 
Go, do thy first works o'er again — 
Go, cleanse Ihee in the Saviour's blood." 



132 Antislaveet Struggle and Teiumph. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Sunderland, Bishop Soule 
presided during tliis trial. "^ The charge of slander 
was sustained by a small majority, but the only pen- 
alty was, that he publish the finding in " Zion's 
Watchman" without note or comment. He did so, 
inserting the words in display type, with deep 
mourning border around them. He withdrew from 
the traveling ministry at this Conference by location. 

At the same period, during the years 1836-1840, the 
movements of the American Antislavery Society were 
provoking antagonisms in the National Legislature, 
whose mistaken efforts at suppression were scattering 
the living coals of truth upon the nation's naked 
heart. Memorials in favor of the abolition of slavery 
in the District of Columbia, and for the suppression 
of the slave-trade between the States, were forwarded 
to Congress in large number. Beginning with 1836, 
and for successive years, a resolution was passed re- 
fusing to receive or heed the memorials sent, until, in 
1840, it was made a standing rule of the House, that 
" no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper 

* The defense was ably conducted by Mr. Sunderland, whose voice 
was husky and on the lowest key. Of the prosecutor, whose voice was 
full and even boisterous, he said, apologetically and sarcastically, " My 
voice is weak, and will not be equal to the task after the overwhelming 
appeals you have heard against me. I envy the vocal power of my 
enemy. But, sir, that is all I do envy about that man ! " 

The rulings of the Bishop in his own behalf, during Mr. Sunderland's 
plea, were such as to provoke sharp words from him. The Bishop had 
occasion, therefore, to maintain his dignity by a very stern rebuke. 
" In all my experience, and in all my intercourse with my fellow-men, 
I have this to say, that La Roy Sunderland is the first man that ever 
dared to speak to me in that manner." Nothing daunted, but rather 
provoked, Mr. Sunderland almost screamed in reply, " I thank God, 
sir, that you have lived long enough to find one man who will tell you 
to your face what many others say of you behind your back." 



Progress — Pastoral Letter of 1840. 133 

praying the abolition of slavery in the District, or 
any State or Territory of the United States, in which 
it now exists, shall be received or entertained in any 
way whatever." The rule of 1837 was passed by a 
majority of fifty-eight. The "gag law" of 1840 had 
only a majority of six. In 1836 the memorialists 
numbered thirty-seven thousand. Afterward they 
numbered hundreds of thousands. Then followed 
the action of Northern State Legislatures in favor of 
the Abolitionists, Massachusetts leading the way in 
1838 by declaring the "gag law" to be ''a usurpation 
of power, a violation of the Constitution, subversive 
of the fundamental principles of the government, 
and at war with the prerogatives of the people." 
Every thing worked together to unsettle the foun- 
dations of slavery both in Church and State. The 
elements of public sentiment were in a state of revo- 
lution and decomposition, ready to take on new forms, 
freed from temporary chaotic confusion, and crystal- 
lized in purer molds of thought. 

The Annual Conferences just prior to 1840 were 
called upon to pass judgment on the proposed change 
in the general rule on slavery, which originated with 
the New England Conference, so that it should for- 
bid " the buying, or selling, or holding men, women, 
or children as slaves, or giving them away, except on 
puipose to free them." In the Genesee Conference 
thirty voted for it, and sixty against it. The Pitts- 
burgh Conference gave five votes for it. All tlie 
other Conferences outside of New England gave less 
votes than these two, and in most cases none at all. 
The Michigan Conference gave one vote for it, and 
the Erie Conference three. The North Carolina, 
Philadelphia, Missouri, Indiana, New Jersey, Troy, 



134: ANTISLAVEliY StKUGGLE A^^D TkIUMPH. 

Black Eiver, Illinois, Kentucky, Georgia, Baltimore, 
Virginia, and otliers, were unanimons for non-concnr- 
rence, or reported no votes in favor of it. 

Memorials were adopted by four Annual Confer- 
ences asking antislavery action — the Maine, New 
Hampshire, 'New England, and Genesee. Abolition 
delegates were elected by the three first named, and 
four of the six from Genesee were Abolitionists. 
The antislavery memorials forwarded to the General 
Conference of 184:0 contained the names of over ten 
thousand private members, and represented at least 
-Q.Ye hundred traveling preachers. These were from 
within the bounds of the three New England Con- 
ferences and the New York, Genesee, Ohio, Black 
River, Oneida, Michigan, Pittsburgh, Indiana, Erie, 
and Troy Conferences. 

The aggregate of results reached, considered nu- 
merically, was far below the hopes of sanguine Abo- 
litionists. Four only out of twenty-eight Annual 
Conferences asked for antislavery action, or one in 
seven. The Abolition delegates were about the same 
proportion of the General Conference, while the 
whole number of traveling preachers represented by 
memorial was a much smaller proportion than the 
one seventh, and the lay memorialists were not in 
number equal to one in seventy of the whole mem- 
bership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But 
there were probably tenfold more of the body of the 
(Jliurch who were identified with the Abolitionists, 
both in sentiment and action. 

The session of the General Conference in Balti- 
more was more than usually agitated on the slavery 
question. Small as was the number of memorialists, 
they were more numerous than the Antiabolitionists 



Peogkess — Pastoral Letter of 1840. 135 

expected. A memorial from IsTew York City of 
nearly twelve limidred sm'prised tlie delegates from 
that region. Its validity was cliallenged, but vindi- 
cated. An intense excitement prevailed for two days 
over it on tlie v/ild assumption of fraud on tlie part 
of Orange Scott. He coolly withstood the assault, 
although in committee a Southern delegate from 
Georgia moved that O. Scott be expelled as an un- 
worthy member. Dr. Elliott said : " In this wdiole 
affair the case seems to be this — There seemed to be 
more Abolitionists in New York City than their op- 
jjonents supposed, wished, or knew of. The Confer- 
ence was pushed into a temporary excitement by 
the warmth and haste of the New York brethren, 
cherished by a pretty warm flame from the South. 
But on calm reflection the whole temporary commo- 
tion subsided." — '"^ Great Secession.'^ 

In the Committee, of tw^enty-eight, on Slavery, as 
the writer was informed by a member of it, the 
Northern members who w^ere not Abolitionists were 
unwilling to express an opinion of slavery in the 
report. This was displeasing to the Southern mem- 
bers, wdio w^anted them to say that slavery was a 
moral evil, if they thought so. Several very ultra 
pro-slavery measures were proposed by William A. 
Smith, wdiicli were so amended as to neutralize their 
force. Mr. Smith then appealed to the committee to 
know if they held slavery to be a moral evil, or not. 
"If," said he, "you hold slavery to be a moral evil, 
hands off that brother, [pointing to Orange Scott;] 
you ought not to condemn, but cover him. If, in- 
deed, slavery be a moral evil, I w^ill defend him as 
long as there is a plank on the deck. If slavery be a 
moral evil, he reasons like a philosopher. The South 



136 Antislaveky Stkuggle akd Triumph. 

will never be satisfied bj your passing resolutions 
against O. Scott and Co. wliile yon hold the same 
doctrines he contends for. If slavery be a moral evil, 
the conclusion is irresistible that it ought to be im- 
mediately abandoned." — MatlacFs ''Life of Orange 
Scott:' 

This will explain the brief and indefinite report on 
slavery, which did not condemn nor approve either 
abolitionism or slavery, and only set forth the expe- 
diency of General Conference inaction, and advised 
" the Annual Conferences, in their action upon this 
subject in future, to adhere closely to the language of 
the Discipline." A minority report, by a vote of 59 
to 52, was not allowed to be presented. But the 
representative of New England Abolitionism, Orange 
Scott, obtained the floor and spoke for two hours in 
opposition to the report of the committee. The 
usual limitation of fifteen minutes was suspended. 
Dr. Elliott says : " Mr.' Scott made a strong and tem- 
perate speech which took a wide range, comprising 
important matter." The New York '' Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal " said : " The speaker's manner 
throughout was dispassionate and conciliatory, and 
his whole address free from offensive or inflammatory 
epithets. He was heard with the greatest respect 
and attention by the body and by a very large audi- 
ence, which had convened to listen to the debate." 

A spirited discussion ensued, but no action was had 
by which the resolutions of the rej^ort became the 
language of the General Conference. In connection 
with the stir about the New York memorial, a severe 
condemnation of all abolition movements was re- 
ported, but never acted upon. Thus no direct issue 
was made on the subject of slavery. Indirectly, the 



Pkogeess — Pastoral Letter of 1840. 137 

colored-testimony resolution, and the resolution on 
the ordination of slave-holders, were in the interests 
of slavery. But the Pastoral Address of the General 
Conference was entirely free from any reflection upon 
the course of the Abolitionists, and contained no word 
of admonition against the agitation of the subject of 
slavery. On the otlier hand, it was conciliatory, and 
even apologetic, in its reference to those who had 
asked for antislavery action. The entire paragraph 
is quoted below : 

Since the commencement of the present session of the 
General Conference, memorials have been presented, princi- 
pally from the Northern and Eastern divisions of the work, 
some praying for the action of the Conference on the subject 
of slavery, and others asking for radical changes in the econ- 
omy of the Church. The results of the deliberations of the 
committees to whom these memorials had a respectful refer- 
ence, and the final action of the Conference upon them, may 
be seen among the doings of this body as reported and pub- 
lished. The issue in several instances is probably different 
from what the memorialists may have thought they had reason 
to expect. But it is to be hoped they will not suppose the 
General Conference has either denied them any legitimate 
right, or been wanting in a proper respect for their opinions. 
Such is the diversity of iiabits of thought, manners, customs, 
and domestic relations among the people of this vast repub- 
lic, and such the diversity of the institutions of the sovereign 
States of the confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an 
easy task to suit all the incidental circumstances of our econ- 
omy to the views and feelings of the vast mass of minds inter- 
ested. We pray, therefore, that brethren w^hose views may 
have been crossed by the acts of this Conference will at least 
give us the credit of having acted in good faith, and of not 
having regarded private ends or party interests, but the best 
good of the whole family of American Methodists. 



138 Antislavery Struggle and Tkiumph. 



CPIAPTEE XIII. 



THE abolition controversy in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church commenced with an effort to in- 
duce the Conferences, both Annual and General, to 
renew their old-time testimonies against slavery. The 
refusal of the latter to condemn all slave-holding, and 
the prohibition of the antislavery action in the former 
by the presiding officers, who claimed to be, and sub- 
sequently were constituted, both judges of law and 
order in the Annual Conferences, without allowing 
an appeal thereto from their decisions, precipitated 
an unfortunate collision betw^een the Abolitionists 
and the authorities of the Church. There arose a 
personal struggle between them. Abolition writers 
^^ assailed individual Bishops, by name, with severe and 
ill-advised criticism. These, in self-defense, preferred 
charges against their assailants, who were usually 
acquitted by their Annual Conferences. Thus a strife 
was engendered which produced alienation and dis- 
affection with some leading Abolitionists, who, there- 
fore, became objects of suspicion, and were charged 
with designing to divide the Church, or purposing to 
withdraw from its communion. 

All such designs were promptly repudiated, and 
earnestly and honestly disclaimed, at first. But, being 
constantly reitei-ated, and the subjects of these suspi- 
cions being very largely regarded and treated as ene- 
mies of the Church, and stigmatized as such, they 



AxTTSLAVEKY Secessiox, 18^1:2-43. 131) 

afterward reluctantly recognized the possibility of a 
division of the Church, or the necessity of with- 
drawal from it. 

During the quadrennium preceding 181:0 a large 
amount of disaffected material had been accumulated 
in and around the Church by the unwise and unjust 
proceedings against Abolitionists. Many young men 
on trial had been discontinued from the traveling 
ministry, and more had been denied admission thereto 
by the Annual Conferences, solely because they were 
Abolitionists. Many local preachers had been de- 
prived of license to preach, and many others were 
refused license to preach, by Quarterly Conferences, 
for the same reason. And not a few leaders had been 
deprived of their class books by pastors who were 
anxious to carry out the constructive law of 1836, 
which was that Methodists must wdiolly refrain from 
agitating the subject of slavery. 

Perhaps it was the inevitable consequence of such 
proceedings that secessions from the Methodist Epis- 
co23al Church are noted as commencing in 1839. In 
Ohio, New York, and Michigan, small societies were 
organized in that or the ensuing jenm which, in some 
instances, were independent congregations. But a 
small connection was formed May 13, 1841, in Mich- 
igan, called " Wesleyan Methodists," which in two 
years reported seventeen stationed preachers, nine 
circuits, and one thousand one hundred and sixteen 
members. I^umerous individual secessions occurred 
in many different sections of the country, which had 
been absorbed with other Churches, while a still 
larger number of persons left the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, who stood waiting in expectation of a 
secession of the main body of the Abolitionists. 



1-iO AXTISLAYERY StKUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

During the winter of 184:0-41 Rev. Orange Scott 
was living retired at K'ewbiiry, Vermont, because of 
poor health, but he occasionally wrote for the press. 
In some of his articles he deprecated his own past 
mode of conducting the antislavery controversy ; 
questioned the present advantage of Church anti- 
slavery societies ; doubted the possibility of reforming 
the Church on the subject of slavery until the State 
should move in the matter ; and declared, that " I 
have no hope that any improvement will take place 
in regard to Church government, and that there is no 
alternative but to submit to things pretty much as 
they are, or secede. I have never yet felt prepared 
for tlie latter, but my opinion is tha.t those who can- 
not conscientiously submit to Methodist economy and 
usages had better peaceably leave." 

As his biographer, seven years afterward, the writer 
had access to a large correspondence, a portion of 
which was from a few men of prominence in the 
Church then and since, who urged him to secede, to 
prepare a plan of Church government, and to call a 
convention, assuring him of their hearty co-operation. 
The above quotations, from his correspondence with 
the press, are the rej)ly he made to tliese imj^ortuni- 
ties at the time. 

The following year, 1842, Mr. Scott announced a 
change of opinion and purj^ose in this matter, and 
w^ith the other ministers, Jotham Ilorton and La Roy 
Sunderland, published a withdrawal, coetaneous with 
the issue of the " True Wesleyan," a weekly paper, 
which advocated the duty of secession, and announced 
a convention of all agreeing with them to prepare for 
a new Church organization, non-episcopal in govern- 
ment, and free from slavery. Of tliose who united 



Antislavery Secession, 1842-43. 141 

in this movement, whose names were familiar as Abo- 
litionists, are found Luther Lee, Cyrus Prindle, Ed- 
ward Smith, W. II. Brewster, S. Salsbury, F. A. Og- 
den, Marcus Swift, L. C. Matlack, and others. At 
the convention for organization, held at Utica, ]S^. Y., 
May 31, 1843, when " The Wesleyan Methodist Con- 
nection of America" was formed, the whole number 
giving in their adhesion was nearly six thousand. 
Among these were twenty-two from the traveling 
ministry of the old Church, who, with as many more 
from the " Protestant " and " Reformed Methodists " 
who were present, joined to twice as many more who 
reported by letter, were divided into six Annual Con- 
ferences, which reported at the first General Confer- 
ence, eighteen months afterward, a total membership 
of fifteen thousand. 

The antislavery secession did not inflict so serious 
a loss numericpJly npon the Methodist Episcopal ^ 
Church as was anticipated. Yet its influence was 
felt very deeply over the connection from the charac- 
ter of the men composing it, and by the energy with 
which the new body renewed the agitation of the 
slavery question. The men who constituted the main- 
spring of the movement gave unmistakable evidence 
of unselfish devotion to principle by leaving behind , 
them, voluntarily, positions of comfort and ample sup- 
port, and going out with the deliberate expectation 
of forming part of a small organization of feeble 
means and giving no hope of personal aggrandizement. 
Mr. Scott had written to Mr. Prindle, months before 
his withdrawal, that " within one year we may have 
a new Church, with more than one score of ministers, 
and more than one or two thousand members." 

The considerations moving these men to action 



142 Antislayeky Struggle and Triumph. 

* 
were stated by tliemselYes, thus : '' I confess that the 
conviction dee}>ens daily npon my mind that the 
Bible, the slaYe, and every thing in the sacred rights 
of man and religion, is calling npon ns to take a stand 
Ni in opposition to that oppression which onr Chnrch is 
protecting." Another said : " I can live either in or 
ont of the Chnrch ; bnt the canse, the precious cause 
of human rights ! Shall I keep silence, and go to my 
grave in peace ? My inclination is in favor of retire- 
ment and silence, but conscience is not exactly quiet. 
I would not do any thing to hedge up the way of my 
brethren in the Church from pleading the cause of 
the slave, though I have but little faith they will ever 
loosen his chains till the country is free." A third 
wrote : " I have been waiting the openings of Provi- 
dence. Hitherto God has gone before and opened 
my way. I am trying to live near God. I hope 
the Lord will direct in all our designs and move- 
ments." 

It was believed and charged at the time, that an 
extensive secret correspondence had prepared the 
way for an iniquitous complicity, in order to a violent 
disruption of the Church for the gratification of per- 
sonal ends. Such was the relation of the writer to 
these men and their movements, that much of their 
correspondence has been in his hand for examination. 
And, however liable they may be to the charge of 
ultraism, or fanatical zeal on the subject of abolition- 
ism ; whatever grounds any may have had for ques- 
tioning the wisdom of their course or the fitness of 
their measures, no one could detect in their freest 
intercourse, even in confidential letters, any sinister 
motives or selfish designs. They had the seeming of 
men who were " prayerfully considering a question of 



Antislayery Secession, 1842-43. 143 

dnty to the slave, looking meanwliile at their respon- 
sibility to God, to their families, and to the world," 
as they claimed. 

The organization effected by them was doctrinally, 
and in its worship, as well as general policy, on the 
model of the Methodist Episcopal Church. No 
Bishops were provided for ; ^^ and chairmen of dis- 
tricts were appointed instead of presiding elders. 
They, however, retained the connectional principle 
through the Quarterly, Annual, and General Confer- 
ences. On the main question of doing all in their 
power for the extirpation of slavery, their position 
was unequivocal. The general rules forbid " buying 
or selling of men, women, or children, wdth an inten- 
tion to enslave them ; or holding them as slaves ; or 
claiming that it is right so to do." The Article of 
Religion, YIII, held that : " We are required to ac- 
knowdedge God as our only supreme ruler, and all 
men are created by him equal in all natural rights. 
Wherefore, all men are bound so to order all their 
individual and social and political acts as to render 
to God entire and absolute obedience, and to secure 
to all men the enjoyment of every natural right, as 
well as to promote the greatest happiness of each in 
the possession and exercise of such rights." And the 
restrictive rules forbid making ''any distinctions in 
the rights and privileges of our ministers and mem- 
bers on account of ancestry or color." 

The antislavery secession was based upon distinc- 
tive Methodist ground. The friction between Wes- 
leyan and Episcopal Methodists resulted in a more 

* Orange Scott said to the writer, that he was in favor of a moder- 
ate episcopacy, which should have a limitation of time and of juris- 
diction, with eligibility to re-election quadrennially. 



'/ 



l-i-i Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

rapid development of antislavery power, wliich has- 
tened, perhaps, the ultimate triumph of freedom. 

That this statement is not a partial judgment by 
one who was identified with the movement, but is an 
important historic truth, will be accepted on the tes- 
timony of two distinguished and disinterested wit- 
nesses. 

Bishop Thomson and the writer, in 1866, were 
canvassing this question at the residence of Thomas 
W. Price, Philadelphia. He said : " We have always 
had a very high opinion of the Wesleyan brethren, 
because their separation from our Church was not 
caused by personal jealousies, or personal offenses, 
real or imaginary, nor opposition to Church polity, 
but entirely upon moral grounds ; and these were 
your hatred to slavery and your zeal for its over- 
throw. And I came very near being one of their 
number. For I, too, was almost discouraged at the 
dark prospect for efl&cient antislavery action in the 
old Church. But I hoped on and prayed for it, and 
at last the old ship righted up, and moved off gal- 
lantly in line of battle." To these remarks it was 
answered: '^Withdrawing as the Wesleyans did, 
w^hen they did, for the reasons they assigned, and organ- 
izing just outside the lines of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on an antislavery platform, they constrained 
a development of antislavery activity within the ' old 
Church,' which they could not have accomplished by 
remaining members of it." " I have no doubt of 
that," the Bishop replied ; "that was the work of the 
Wesleyan Church, and it was well done." 

Dr. Whedon, editor of the "Quarterly," in the 
October number for 1865, said : " Especially would 
we rejoice in the return of that Church, the Wes- 



Antislaveky Secession, 1842-43. 145 

LEYAN, who seceded from us rather than make our 
concessions to the Southern slave power. "We honor 
and love those men. Their secession, as we believe, 
saved our Church in 1844 from accepting a slave- 
holding Bishop. Thej, honorably to themselves, left 
the Church for the Church's good ; and for that same 
Church's good we trust that they will return with a 
full, triumphant welcome. Never, in such a crisis, 
may the Church want those who will desert her ranks 
and frighten her soul from bowing her knee to Baal." * 

* Note. — Letter of Moses Hill to Cyrus Prindle. 

In the summer of 1847 the Erie Conference held its session at 
Meadville, Pa. Dr. Bond, with other visitors, was in attendance. I 
was residing there, and finished my second year's labor. Dr. Bond 
took tea with us. We had a long conversation. He talked of his 
controversy with the old radicals, his part in the great antislavery 
rupture of 1844, and of his controversy Avith the antislavery men in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, with Scott, Lee, Prindle, and Horton. 
He told me of his tour through New England before the secession of 
those brethren ; how he found the influence of these brethren in New 
England, and the prejudice he found there against himself ; how he 
looked over the whole ground, and became convinced that the only 
way to save the Church in New England was to get these men out of 
the Church, bring on the crisis as soon as possible, and change the 
issue of the controversy so as to divide the antislavery men of New 
England, and at least weaken the influence of Scott and others ; how 
he calculated that when these men should leave the Church and set up 
for themselves, many who were in hearty sympathy with them while 
in the Church would become their opponents when outside. " With 
these convictions settled in my mind," said he, "I returned to New 
York v/ith the determination to write them out of the Church." This 
led to a series of articles in the " Christian Advocate," under the 
caption, " Radico- Abolitionism " and " Politico-Abolitionism." 

Whether^ the doctor was right in his calculation as to the best course 
to pursue, I am not prepared to say. Some men who were io deep 
sympathy with these men soon took quite strong ground on the issue 
of leaving the Church. But it is evident that if the General Confer- 
ence of 1844 had not dealt as they did with Bishop Andrew, the 
Wesleyans would have become a power iu the laud. Moses Hill. 

io 



146 Antislaver Stkuggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEE XIV. 

AirriSLAVERY AWAKENING, 1840-1843. 

DUKII^G the autumn of 1840 an effort was made 
to rally the Abolitionists of the Church gen- 
erally by holding a convention in I^ew York city, 
which brought together a large number of them, but 
80 di\aded in sentiment that the measures proposed 
by the more radical were strongly opposed or de- 
feated. An American Wesleyan Antislavery Society 
was organized, with much opposition, but died at its 
first anniversary. A proposed Methodist Antislavery 
Missionary Society was so unpopular as to have 
scarcely a show of favor, except with a few. 

The condition of the Church generally on the sub- 
ject of slavery, in 1841, and the feeling of the Aboli- 
tionists, were noted by Dr. Tefft, then a resident of 
New England, who said : '' In regard to abolition 
associations and organizations, T believe they are all 
now in the wrong. Time was when they were a 
source of good. But the scale is turned." Dr. 
Elliott remarks : " ^Nevertheless, the Methodist anti- 
slavery societies were not given up, though they had 
a sickly existence. The brethren in New England 
could not, with any face, give up the form, although 
the thing itself was languishing. The American 
"Wesleyan Antislavery Society held its first and last 
anniversary at Albany, New York, October 6, 1841. 
The energy of the Abolitionists was not now com- 
bined. Yarious influences united to scatter their 



AnTISL AVERY AwAKENTNG, 1840-43. 14 7 



power. The Providence Conference formed a soci- 
ety, met, passed resolutions, and finished their busi- 
ness without a shred of radicalism. The N^ew En- 
gland Conference Society had a meeting, passed 
resolutions, with but little done any way except to 
keep up appearances. The l^ew Hampshire Confer- 
ence Society went through the rounds with all pa- 
tience and earnestness, and all passed off very pleas- 
antly." —" 6^'/'^ai5 Secession,'' col. 233. And Dr. 
Stevens, then editor of "Zion's Herald," testified in 
1842 that it was "a time of profound peace." 

And so it was. The " Watchman " had become the 
organ of mesmerism. Many who had written exten- 
sively against slavery had withdrawn from the public 
journals. "Zion's Herald" was occupied but little 
with the subject of slavery. Nothing was published, 
for months together, of correspondence nor editori- 
ally. All was quiet along the shore of New England. 
Bishop Hedding said to Rev. M. Bates, in the fall of 
1842 : " The antislavery excitement in the Church is 
at an end." And the official journal at New York 
pronounced abolitionism to be dead ! " These ap]3ear 
to be gloomy and dark times to the Methodist Aboli- 
tionists," said a Boston pastor. Another writes to 
Mr. Prindle ; " I confess I feel somewhat as you ex- 
press it — like waiting in sullen silence for others to 
produce some change, or submit to things as they are. 
I fear this feeling is prevalent, but I doubt whether 
it is right." 

The American Antislavery Society had become 
divided and paralyzed, on the one hand by the preju- 
dices of the clergymen against women speaking in pub- 
lic, and on the other hand by the non-resistant senti- 
ments of William Lloyd Garrison and his friends, 



148 Antislavekt Struggle and Triumph. 

who insisted on the sinfulness of voting under the 
Constitution of the United States, and who persisted 
in the public advocacy of antisabbath, antichurch, 
antiministry, and no-government views. And so in- 
different were the mass of the Abolitionists to the 
claims of the cause, that not one of all the antislavery 
journals were self-supporting. All were published at 
a loss to their proprietors. A temporary pause en- 
sued. Many said abolitionism was dead. It was 
sleeping. 

At the General Conference of 1840 a memorial was 
prepared by forty official members of Sharp-street 
and Asbury Churches, in Baltimore, protesting against 
the colored-testimony resolution. It was put in the 
hands of He v. Thomas B. Sargent, and by him given 
to one of the Bishops. Through the efforts of Dr. 
Bond and others the memorialists were pacified, 
without the Conference knowing any thing of the 
document. Dr. Elliott says : " The colored members 
of the Church were greatly afflicted. This matter had 
like to have done great mischief." — " Great Seces- 
sion^^ col. 223. This document was afterward pub- 
lished. Among other things, equally pungent, the 
memorialists said : " We have learned with profound 
regret and unutterable emotion" of the resolution 
adopted May 18, which "has inflicted, we fear, an 
irreparable injury upon eighty thousand souls for 
whom Christ died — souls which, by this act of your 
venerable body, have been stript of the dignity of 
Christians, degraded in the scale of humanity, and 
treated as criminals, for no other reason than the color 
of their skin. . . . The adoption of this soul-sickening 
resolution has destroyed the peace and alienated the 
affections of twenty-five hundred members of the 



Aniislayery Awakening, 1840-43. 149 

Church in this citj, who now feel that thej are but 
spiritual orphans or scattered sheep. . . . The deed 
you have done could not have originated in that 
love which works no ill to its neighbor, but in a dis- 
position to propitiate that spirit, which is not to be 
appeased, except through concessions derogatory to 
the dignity of our holy religion." And, therefore, 
they protest against it, and conjure them "to wipe 
from the Journal the odious resolution." 

Although this was not done, nor their wishes made 
known to that body, an opportunity was soon after 
afforded for Dr. Bond and the Baltimore Methodists 
to give a substantial proof of their identity with and 
sympathy for free persons of African descent. "A 
pro-slavery movement in the winter of 1841 and 1842 
was the occasion of manifesting the antislavery spirit 
of the Methodists of Maryland. A small fraction of 
the slave-holding interest, assuming to act for the 
whole, held a convention, and recommended to the 
Legislature a course of action, the effect of wliich 
would be to drive from the State, or reduce to bond- 
age, those w^ho, by the laws of the State, were free, a 
great many of whom w^ere Methodists and claimed the 
sympathy and protection of Methodists. The pro- 
slavery men had taken advantas^e already of the fears 
induced by abolition agitation, and passed laws that 
made the friends of humanity to blush. Although a 
majority of the people were opposed thereto, the en- 
forced silence on slavery prevented outspoken oppo- 
sition. But this last was too much for the good peo- 
ple of Maryland, especially when, to their astonish- 
ment, a bill Y\^as passed by the House in conformity 
w^ith the resolutions of the convention." — ^^ Great 
Secession,-^ col. 237, 964. 



150 ANTISLA.VERY StEUGGLE AND TeIUMPH. 

A meeting of the male members of tlie Baltimore 
Methodist Churches was held February 28, 1842, 
from which a memorial went up to the Senate, signed 
by Thomas E. Bond, Sen., G. C. M. Eoberts, and 
Kobert Emory, Committee, remonstrating against the 
bill of the House. They declare that the provisions 
of the proposed " act for the better security of negro 
slaves, and for promoting industry and honesty among 
the free people of color," do not correspond with its 
title ; that they tend " to perpetuate slavery in the 
State, a calamity hitherto deprecated alike by Chris- 
tians and patriots ; " that they must inevitably banish 
from the State many free persons, and subject to 
hopeless slavery many others." And they boldly de- 
clare that " the making slaves of freemen has been de- 
nounced by Christendom as piracy, but by this bill 
every citizen is tempted to engage in the unhallowed 
work. . . . Many of the people who are to be the sub- 
jects of these enactments are united with us in 
Church fellowship, and we implore your honorable 
body to save them from a persecution more horrible 
than the African slave-trade." 

The following week Dr. Bond, in the " Christian 
Advocate," overflowed with indignation at " this mad 
movement of the slave-holders' convention," " beyond 
the ordinary folly and wickedness of men. To our 
brethren we say, and to all who fear God we say, You 
are released. The slave-holders' convention have 
taken off your strait-jackets. The questions which 
Vv^e were told it was dangerous to discuss are now 
forced upon us by those who conjured us to be silent 
for the sake of mercy and humanity ; and, with the 
Ijlessing of God, we will discuss them to the hearts' con- 
tent of the slave-holders' convention." Such was the 



AxTrSLAVKRY AwAKKNTNG, 1840-48. 151 

effect of the movement thus heralded, that the rejection 
of the offensive bill vras promptly secured in the Senate. 

And hereby was demonstrated what Methodism 
could do if she had a mind to work in this direction ; 
and this recalls Thomas "Whitson's quaint remark on 
Methodism. He was a Quaker, and the first signer of 
the Declaration of Sentiments adopted by the Ameri- 
can Antislavery Society in 1833. "I have been at one 
of the camp-meetings of thy people, and heard them 
shout and pray with much inward comfort. And I 
tell thee, Lucius, what I think, moreover, that if the 
Methodist people would try it, they might shout and 
pray down slavery in a short season. They have 
much power in that direction ! " 

Immediately following the antislavery secession in 
1843, and to some extent manifestly a consequent 
movement, a great awakening occurred among the 
Abolitionists and in the Church generally, renew- 
ing the antislavery agitation. It became necessary to 
remove all cause of dissatisfaction with the position 
of the Church to prevent secession. It was desirable 
to develop antislavery activity to take away the re- 
proach that the seceders were not backward to indulge 
in liberally. Besides, a quickened conscientious senti- 
ment w^as aroused which never slept again. 

Prior to 1843 no Annual Conference was allowed 
to say that all slave-holding was sin. Subsequently 
no form of expression was objected to by the presid- 
ing officer of any Annual Conference. Immediately 
following the withdrawal of Orange Scott and others, 
and before their organization in May, 1843, arrange- 
ments were made in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
for holding three large conventions — in Boston, Jan- 
uary 18 ; in II alio well, Maine, February 22 ; and in 



152 AxTisLAVEKY Steuggle axd Tkiumpii. 

Claremont, Xew Hampshire, Marcli 22. Tlie Meth- 
odists of J^ew England moved en rnasse^ as it were, in 
their support. The utterances at these conventions 
were full, strong, and clear. Nothing equaling their 
ultraism had before been adopted. The Boston Con- 
vention aifirmed that " slave-holding is sin ; that every 
slave-holder is a sinner, and ouglit not to be admitted 
to the pulpit or the communion ; that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is responsible for slavery in its 
pale ; and that nothing short of a speedy and entire 
separation of slavery from the Church could satisfy 
the consciences of honest Abolitionists, and therefore 
reformation or division is the only alternative." The 
Hallo well Convention declared, " that, from a careful 
collection of documentary evidence, with other well- 
attested facts, there are within the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church two hundred traveling ministers holding 
sixteen hundred slaves ; about one thousand local 
preachers holding ten thousand ; about twenty-five 
thousand members holding two hundred and seven 
thousand nine hundred more." And the Claremont 
Convention represented, as the conclusion of the 
whole matter, •' that the only way to prevent an en- 
tire dissolution among us as a Church, is an entire 
separation from the South." And a plan was agreed 
upon for memorializing the General Conference to 
divide the Church, North and South, or to set off 
the New England Conferences by themselves. Sub- 
sequently, in discussing the " Plan of Separation," 
so-called, Dr. James Porter, in his " Compendium," 
referring to 1844, says : " Our choice was between 
having a slave-holding Bishop, the transfer of our 
churches to Wesleyanism, so-called, or a general New 
England secession." 



AXTISLAVERY AwAKEXING, 1840-43. 153 

The colninns of the " Christian Advocate " at tliis 
time were opened editorially to the discussion of slav- 
ery ; first in denouncing the Slave-holders' Conven- 
tion, and then by the discussion of the two questions 
— " Ought the General Conference to enact a rule of 
discipline by which all slave-holders, whatever be the 
peculiar circumstances of the case, shall be expelled 
from the communion of the Church ? " or, " If it be 
admitted that there are circumstances which will 
iustifv a Methodist in holdino^ slaves, then, whether it 
is possible to make a rule which, while it will reach 
ail othei's, shall spare those exempt cases '', " The 
editor maintained the negative of both questions. 
Afterward Kev. Robert Boyd was allowed to j^ublish 
two articles on the other side, to which Dr. Bond 
replied, expressing modified antislavery views, which 
provoked criticism in the " Southern Advocate," and 
called forth the condemnation of sundry Quarterly 
Conferences in Georgia and Alabama. 

With characteristic independence Dr. Bond charged 
that, upon the Southern side of the question, there 
was ultraism not less dangerous to the common wel- 
fare than that of the Abolitionists. And he summed 
up the case thus pointedly : " The Southern ultraism 
would leave us without hope of a better state of 
things ; for slavery must not only be endured, but 
purposely propagated. Our Discipline admits that 
slavery is a great evil, and of course a moral evil, as 
it would be unbecoming the Church to make so grave 
a declaration about a physical evil." He concludes 
by declaring, that whenever the Church shall require 
him to advocate or defend the o]3inion contained in 
the resolutions from Georgia and Alabama, he will 
resign as editor. And should the Gharch ever cease 



/ 



154 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

to testify against slavery as a moral evil, as lie had 
defined that term, he should seek a more pure com- 
munity. (" Christian Advocate," vol. xviii, page 10.) 
The controversy thus introduced was participated in 
by Southern correspondents. And Dr. Wightman, 
editor of the " Southern Advocate," reviewed the 
whole subject involved. He regarded the position 
of the " Christian Advocate," at ^ew York, " as the 
embodiment of the feeling and opinion of that por- 
tion of the Church which will hold the balance of 
power at the approaching General Conference, and 
will then decide the destiny of the Church for good 
or evil. He notes two things worthy of remark: 
First, That this position v/as an advance upon what 
the Book of Discipline aifirms, and the doctrines here- 
tofore maintained by the Journals of the General 
Conference. Secondly, There is an implied admission 
that the antislavery feeling — that which denounces 
slave-holding in existing circumstances as a sin — is 
gaining ground and winning converts, else why such 
earnest discussion upon it ? " 

And so it was. The time of awakening had come. 
The Church was aroused. These many earnest words 
betokened action. What would be done by the Gen- 
eral Conference of 18M no man knew. That slavery 
had nothing to hope for, its best friends feared. 



The Great ChisiSj 18M. 155 



CHAPTEK XY. 



AT the General Conference of 1844, in !New York 
city, the Abolitionists and Conservatives of the 
Chnrch were a nnit in action, because of the issues 
made by the Southern delegates on behalf of slavery. 
The Soutli asked that a slave-holding traveling 
preacher, who had been suspended by the Baltimore 
Annual Conference, should be restored, and that a 
slave-holding Bishop should be allowed to remain un- 
disturbed in his office. But to allow a Bishop to be 
a slave-holder would conflict with the usage of the 
Church from its organization ; would yield a j^oint 
contended for by the South, in vain, at the three pre- 
ceding General Conferences ; and would compel a 
violent disruption of the Church throughout the 
North, East, and West. While, on the other hand, to 
unfrock a Bishop, or suspend or censure him, when 
no canon or statute law of the Church had been vio- 
lated, was to tread on new ground, having no prece- 
dent, and possibly in conflict w^ith the principles of 
ecclesiastical law. Besides, the demand for a slave- 
holding Bishop, long-continued, with ever-growing 
importunity, and nov/ gratified in the case of James 
O. Andrew, would guarantee a united South in favor 
of dividing or disrupting the Church, if he was dis- 
turbed in his bishopric. Continued unity seemed 
impossible. Where should the lines of division be 
drawn 'i Across the continent from east to west ? 



156 Antislayeky Steuggle and Teiumpii. 

or indefinitely tlirougli the length and breadth of the 
land ? The crisis was at hand. 

Preliminary and prophetic was the vote on the 
appeal of Rev. F. A. Harding from the action of the 
Baltimore Conference, which had suspended him 
from the ministry for refusing to manumit his slaves, 
which action was sustained by 117 yeas to 56 nays — 
more than a majority of two thirds for manumission. 

The action in Bishop Andrew's case was, first, a 
report from the Committee on Episcopacy, giving 
his written statement of the facts in relation to his 
slaves. Then followed a resolution which "affection- 
ately requested " him to resign. This Avas substi- 
tuted by another, which declared, "That it is the sense 
of this General Conference, that he desist from the 
exercise of his office so long as this impediment re- 
mains." The discussion continued tlirough ten days. 

Alfred Griffith argued that a Bisho]3 is only an 
officer of the General Conference, created for a spe- 
cific purpose, and for no other than the pui'poses 
sjDecified. The Annual Conferences had fixed this 
office on the General Conference, which they had in- 
stituted, and provided in one of the restrictive rules 
that the General Conference should not do away 
with that office. At the same time they reserved in 
their own hands the power to do away with the 
office altogether when it should so please them. 
Consequently they never intended to constitute the 
Bishop an officer for life under all circumstances. 
And the question is now. Has the General Confer- 
ence power to regulate her own officers, to provide 
for any exigency whicli may operate as a barrier in 
the way of the accomplishment of the objects and 
purposes for wliich the officers were chosen i 



The Gkeat Crisis, 18-±4 



-^ i 



Peter P. Sanclford deemed it expedient that Bishop 
Andrew shonld not any longer exercise his office as a 
Bishop, in order to prevent convulsions in the Church 
and the loss of very large numbers of members, but 
he would not do any thing to affect tlie ministerial 
character and standing of the Bishop. He proposed 
only to place him where they found him when they 
put him into the superintendenc}^ 

William Winans did not deny tlie right to request 
Bishop Andrew to retire from the episcopacy, but 
the expediency of such action by the General Confer- 
ence he did deny, as that would create an uncontrol- 
lable necessity that there should be a disconnection of 
a large portion of the Church from that body. Such 
a vote would cut off thirteen hundred preachers and 
four hundred and fifty thousand members. 

Elias Bowen reiterated the views of Mr. Griffith 
and Mr. Sandford, and moreover expressed his pref- 
erence for a secession by a portion than to have schism 
run through the whole Church from center to circum- 
ference. *' If any portion of the Church should 
deem themselves called upon to secede, however we 
must deprecate such an event, it is unavoidable." 

Lovick Pierce indorsed all that Mr. "Winans had 
said, and declared that if by a two thirds vote Bishop 
Andrew was requested to resign he could not do it, 
and would not do it, knowing as he did the effects 
that would grow out of the movement. " Shall that 
be done which is inexpedient for us, because it is 
expedient for you ? Show that Bishoj) Andrew has 
violated any one of the established rules and regula- 
tions of the Church, and that he refuses to conform 
himself thereto, and you put yourselves in the right 
and us in the wrong." 



158 Antislayert Struggle and Triumph. 

Thomas Crowder pressed the point that, placing the 
argument on the ground of expediency, and insisting 
that Bishop .Andrew's ministerial and Christian char- 
acter was not to be impeached, was a concession of 
two facts : first, That he had violated no precept of 
Christianity ; and, second. That he had violated no rule 
of Discipline in becoming connected with slavery. 

John Spencer replied to the question, AYhat specific 
rule has Bishop Andrew violated ? that the mere silence 
of the Discipline in regard to a particular case is no 
evidence that action in that case would be contrary to 
our rules. But we have a rule. A Bishop may be 
expelled for improper conduct. '' Improper conduct," 
says one of our Bishops, " is a small offense, less than 
an immorality." The General Conference must de- 
termine what improper conduct is. 

Seymour Coleman had expected a peaceful Confer- 
ence, supposing, as he did, that the fire-brands had 
left the ranks last year. But give our Southern 
brethren a slave-holding Bishop, and they would 
make the whole Xorth a magazine of gunpowder and 
the Bishop a fire-brand in the midst. 

IS^athan Bangs said : '' I think there are many things 
that would disqualify a man for holding the office of 
Bishop that do not amount to immorality. Should 
Bishop Hedding declare that it w^as a sin to hold 
slaves under any circumstances, it would identify 
him with the ultra party, and I would vote for his 
retiring, because that would disqualify him for his 
work as superin.tendent over the whole Church." 

Stephen Olin was unwilling to request Bishop An- 
drew to resign. He favored the substitute, which 
expressed the judgment that he ought to " desist 
from the exercise of his office so long as the impedi- 



The Great Crisis, 18:t4. 150 



ment remains. Because the concurrent testimony of 
the accredited, venerable, and discreet men from the 
JSTorthern Conferences was, that if things remain as 
they are the difficulty is unmanageable and over- 
whelming, pregnant with danger, and threatening 
manifold disasters and disaffections throughout the 
Church, it is for this General Conference to grapj^le 
with the difficulties and dispose of them in some way. 
Our powers are so great as to allow us to make some 
provision against them. We cannot do away with 
the episcopacy, nor infringe upon its character as a 
general superintendency. Within these limits we 
have plenary powers for carrying out, through the 
episcopacy, the general purposes of the Conference 
and the Church. I trust some measure may be 
adopted that will greatly palliate and diminish, if not 
wholly avert, the dangers that tlireaten us. The sub- 
stitute now proposed I regard as such a measure." 

Benjamin M. Drake proposed to meet the difficulty, 
and obviate the objections to a slave-holding Bishop 
presiding in i^orthern Conferences, by recommend- 
ing the episcopacy to assign to each superintendent 
his sphere of labor for the next four years. 

Henry Slicer, as a Conservative and friend of the 
slave, favored the substitute. Bishop Andrew might 
become disincumbered of slavery, and that very mo- 
ment the full powers of the general superintendency 
would inure to him. The Bishop had not infracted 
the Discipline, but he had offended against the great 
law of expediency. 

Phineas Crandal would have voted for the request 
to resign, but he was in doubt about expressing 
merely a judgment that the Bishop should desist. He 
was apprehensive that if the brother refused submis- 



160 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

sion, and four years more passed over, it might be 
very difficult to control the matter. 

AYilliam D. Cass regarded it morally wrong to be a 
slave-holder, and that Bishop Andrew had done wrong 
in becoming a slave-holder, and thereby disturbing 
the peace of the Church. " Four Annual Conferences 
and thousands of our members in l^ew England have 
solemnly protested against having a slave-holding 
Bishop ; and if he holds his office there will be 
large secessions, or whole Conferences will leave. If 
this Conference does any thing less than declare 
slavery a moral evil we stand on a volcano at the 
:N'orth." 

George F. Pierce urged that the question involved 
more than was affirmed of the disqualification of 
Bishop Andrew and the expediency of suspending 
the exercise of his functions. The proposed measure 
w^as part and parcel of a system, slowly developed, 
yet obvious in its designs and unwearied in its opera- 
tions, to deprive Southern ministers of their rights, 
and to disfranchise the whole Southern Church. " I 
do not feel a great deal of solicitude about the issue, 
because I regard the great question of unity as settled 
by the previous action of the Conference in the Har- 
ding case." He doubted if the argument of expedi- 
ency had half the force assigned to it. He said : " I 
do not believe the people of New York would decline 
to receive Bishop Andrew, or that he w^ould be ob- 
jected to in IS'ew Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, or 
in any of the Conferences of the Western States. 
The difficulties are with the New Englanders. I will 
allow that there may be secession, societies broken 
up. Conferences split, within the New England Con- 
ferences. I prefer that all New England should 



The Great Crisis, 1844. 161 

secede, or be set off, with her share of the Church 
property, than that this General Conference should 
make this ruthless invasion upon the connectional 
unity and the integrity of the Church. Let liew 
England go with all my heart. If the New England 
Conferences were to secede the rest of us would have 
peace. But set off the South and you multiply divis- 
ions. There will be secessions in the Northern 
Conferences if Bishop Andrew resigns or is deposed. 
Prominent men will abandon your Church. I vent- 
ure to predict that when the day of division comes, ten 
years from that day, and perhaps less, there will not 
be a shred of the distinctive peculiarities left. The 
venerable man who now presides over the Northern 
Conferences may live out his time as a Bishop, but he 
will never have a successor. Episcopacy will be 
given up, presiding eldership will be given up, the 
itinerancy will come to an end, and congregational- 
ism will be the order of the day." 

A. B. Longstreet cited the successive steps of au- 
thority assumed by the Romish Church which re- 
sulted in its present monstrous pretensions to suprem- 
acy, as illustrative of the possibilities of Methodist 
history, as seen already in the exactions made of the 
South, and in test rules on slavery and other subjects. 
He would never consent to any test rules other than 
those which obtained when Methodism first took root 
in our land. '' Every Conference for ten years has 
been oppressed with petition after petition on the 
subject of slavery. The petitioners are informed by 
our committees that they were applying to a jurisdic- 
tion which is incompetent to give relief. At length 
one who occupies one of the first places among us 
finds himself connected with slavery. He finds the 
11 



162 AXTISLAYERY STRUGGLE AXD TeIUMPH. 

Conference in commotion. He convened the dele- 
gates from the slave-holding Conferences, and, for the 
sake of peace, proposed to resign ; but we, to a man, 
declared to him that if he sought the peace of the 
Church by that course he would be disappointed 
of his object ; that his resignation to ajDpease the 
clamor of the Abolitionists would spread general dis- 
content through the whole Sonth. ' We cannot lie 
down and see you deposed. If it comes to this, that 
being connected with slavery disqualifies you, we are 
disqualified.' " 

Jesse T. Peck replied to Mr. Pierce, and denied 
that the question of unity Vv^as decided, or that the 
disfranchisement of the whole Southern Church and 
ministry was an ultimate design. He also insisted 
that no constitutional rights were to be invaded, for 
no man had a constitutional right to be a Bishop. 
And as to whether a man will do for a Bishop, tlie 
General Conference is the sole judge, either as to his 
election or retention. " We might as well talk of a 
constitutional right to be an editor, or a Book Agent, 
or any other General Conference officer." 

" But," continued Mr. Peck, " our brethren of the 
South utterly mistake the truth in this matter. This 
has never been a question of principle, but measures, 
between us and Xew England. We have always been 
agreed in fundamental antislavery sentiment. The 
united West and ^orth and East form an insuperable 
barrier to the advance of slavery. We are happy that 
New England is with us to a man in this fearful con- 
flict. But my friend from Georgia says, ' Let New 
England go ! ' That exclamation vibrates in my soul 
in tones of grating discord. What is New England, 
that we should part with her with so little reluctance ? 



The Great Crisis, 1844 163 



"New England ! the land of the pilgrims — the land of 
many of our venerated fathers in Israel — the land of 
Broadhead, of Merritt, of Pickering, and a host of 
vvorthies whom Vve have delighted to honor as the 
bulwarks of Methodism in its early days of primitive 
purity and peril, ' Let I^ew England go ? ' No, sir, 
never ! And our Southern brethren can't induce us 
to use such language. They can't provoke us to say, 
' Let the South go ! ' 'No, sir ; we cannot part with 
our brethren whom we love so well. We will not let 
them go unless they tear themselves from our arms 
bedewed with the tears of affection.'' 

A. L. P. Green took issue with the position several 
had maintained — that a Bishop was nothing more than 
an officer of the General Conference, and argued that 
he vv^as the officer of the Conference simply in the 
cjiaracter of a chairman, but that as Bishop he was an 
officer of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of ilmerica. And he declared that if 
any one who should vote to depose Bishop Andrew 
^' was to be elected in his place, and should go South 
to attend our Conferences, and we were to sustain 
him, and thereby also the action of the Conference in 
deposing him, I do not know, sir, but the people 
would rise en nucsse and escort us out of town in a 
genteel dress of tar and feathers." Lie tliought the 
South would stand the rescinding of the colored-testi- 
mony resolution, the decision in Harding's case, and 
the election of a non-slaveholding Bishop ; but as to 
saying, " Here, take Bishop Andrew and crucify him, 
for I find no fault in him," as the passage of that 
resolution would say, he must pray, " God save us 
from such a course." 

Leonidas L. Ilamline said, '' There are two cpiestions 



164 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

involved : Has the General Conference constitutional 
antlioritj to pass this resolution ? Is it proper or fit- 
ting that we should do it ? " He argued tliis authority 
from the genius of our polity on points which most 
resemble this, such as the removal of class-leaders, ex- 
horters, preachers, pastors, and presiding elders, 
whose amenability related not only to the vices, but 
to the improprieties, of behavior. His second argu- 
ment for authority to depose a Bishop summarily for 
improprieties, morally innocent, which embarrass the 
exercise of his functions, was from the relations of 
the General Conference to the Church and to the 
Episcopacy. This Conference is supreme while act- 
ing within its constitutional limits, and its decisions 
are final and all-controlHng. It can make rules of 
every sort for the government of the Church. It has 
legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy. 

The General Conference is the fountain of all 
executive authority. Everything conveyed to Bisli- 
ops, presiding elders, pastors, etc., by statutory pro- 
vision was in the General Conference. All it can 
confer it can withhold, and also resume at will if 
no constitutional restriction forbids. And the consti- 
tutional grant of power to the General Conference is 
in mass, and no more excludes the executive than it 
does either the legislative or judicial. And that 
our powers are administrative do not we declare by 
inspecting and passing judgment upon the Minutes 
of every Annual Conference, and by putting the ad- 
ministration of our Bishops under severe incpiisition 
for approval or disapproval. And the " power to ex- 
pel " a bishop " for impro2:>er conduct," he said, " is 
recognized as existing in the General Conference, in 
the Disci23line, answer to Question 4, page 28." " Im- 



The Geeat Crisis, 1844. 165 



proper" means simply not suitable, or unfitting. 
Whatever is unfitting a Bishop's ofiice, and would 
impair his usefulness in the exercise of its functions, is 
embraced in the phrase " improper conduct." Finally 
the words "if they see it necessary," accord to the 
Conference discretionary power, and invite them to 
proceed on the ground of expediency, of which some 
so loudly complain. These summary removals are 
from ofiice, and not from orders. And all ranks of 
ofiicers are included up to the point where the ofiicer 
has no superior; which, Mr. Hamline showed, in- 
cluded the Bishops, as they were subordinate to the 
General Conference. Finally, the expediency of the 
action proposed was to be determined by the extent 
of tlie evil to be prevented; and if the calamities 
were likely to be heavy, long continued, and scarcely 
ever ended, the call for summary proceedings is loud 
and imperative. If in such circumstances this Con- 
ference declines to act, it will betray its trust and dis- 
honor God. When the Church is about to suffer a 
detriment, which we by constitutional power can 
avert, it is as much treason not to exercise the power 
we have as to usurp in other circumstances that 
which we have not. 

Silas Comfort called attention to the third restrict- 
ive rule, which guarded the itinerant general superin- 
tend ency. The law enacted under that article of the 
constitution is found on page 29 of the Discipline, 
answer to Question 6, which requires that if a Bishop 
cease from traveling at large among the people he 
should not exercise the E^^iscopal office without the 
consent of the General Conference. Bishop Andrew 
could not, under his present embarrassment, travel at 
large throughout the connection ; and, therefore, with- 



166 AnTISL AVERT STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

out the consent of this Conference, he must suspend 
the exercise of his office till his embarrassment be re- 
moved. According to Bislioj) Hedding, in his "Kotes 
on the Discipline," he was '' the servant of the elders." 
If so, it is within the pro^'ince of the great body of the 
eldership now present by representation in this Con- 
ference to suspend the jurisdiction of Bishop An- 
di-ew. 

William A. Smith criticised Mr. Hamline's analogy 
respecting the sunjmary removal of officers as not to 
the point, and denied that Bishop Andrew had acted 
improperly, and affirmed that in no offensive sense 
was he a slave-holder. He said a friend died some 
short time after his appointment as Bishop, in 1832, 
and left him a girl to raise, and at a given age to send 
her to Liberia, if she would consent to go. He faith- 
fully fulfilled his trust. She refused to go to Liberia, 
and remains his property, as free as the laws will per- 
mit her to be. Li the second instance, he inherited a 
boy by the death of his wife, who is also as free as 
the laws of the State will permit him to be. In the 
third instance, he married a lady who was the owner 
of slaves, which he did not wish to become the owner 
of, and relinquished to her at once the legal title 
which fell to him by marriage. Two attributes must 
attach to the act of holding this property to make it 
oifensive in the sense of the Disci j)line : it must be 
received and held with an intention to enslave ; and 
the holder must of purpose omit to manumit wdien 
by doing so freedom could be secured. No such in- 
tention or omitted duty is charged in this case. 

Mr. Smith then classified the parties in the Gen- 
eral Conference as on one side thirteen Southern An- 
nual Conferences, on the other the four l^ew England 



The Great Crisis, 1844. 167 

Conferences and a few IN'orthern Conferences, leaving 
between the two parties all the Conferences, including 
ISTew York and those south and west of it, as the 
umpires in this controversy, to whom he appealed as 
having the entire responsibility of this decision. He 
further argued that the rule of the Discipline on the 
eligibility of slave-holders to office was a compromise 
act, a basis of union, a common platform on which 
the opposite parties have stood since soon after the 
organization of the Church ; and therefore, no peti- 
tions nor memorials on slavery should be received or 
considered. And as the Bishop's connection with 
slavery is provided for in the compromise rule, the 
" unacceptability " complained of is not his fault, but 
theirs who make the complaint, and they, not he, 
should suffer the consequences. Should you append 
a request that he free himself from his present rela- 
tion to slavery if it be practicable, we could not abso- 
lutely object to it ; at least, the consequences would 
not be so serious. But the adoption of either the 
substitute or the original resolution will be in the 
highest degree proscriptive, will put in jeopardy all 
our missions among slaves, and a division of our 
ecclesiastical confederation would become a high and 
solemn duty. 

John A. Collins took issue with the claim that a 
compromise act on slavery could be found in the con- 
stitution of the Church. He thought that, as the 
Bishop knew when he was elected that a slave-holder 
could not have been elected, he did commit an improp- 
er act in afterward becoming connected with slavery. 
The Bishop had offended a portion of the brethren in 
the ministry and membership, and the Discipline re- 
quired that a Bishop should be blameless. He, how- 



168 Antislayeky Struggle and Triumph. 

ever, knew a ground on which he could meet the South, 
and hoped it might be acceptable. It consisted of 
three resolutions : one, an expression of regret ; an- 
other, a request to free himself from his connection 
with slavery within the ensuing four years ; a third, 
erasing all action in the case of Silas Comfort in 1840. 

James B. Finley, the mover of the substitute, re- 
viewed the position of its opponents, reiterated un- 
compromising opposition to slavery and to its connec- 
tion with the episcopacy. He was not an Abolition- 
ist. They called him pro-slavery. Southern men 
called him an Abolitionist. He was Southern born, 
of slave-holding parents ; but they had early seen the 
evil, freed themselves from the curse, and removed 
six thousand dollars' worth of slaves, and set them up 
for themselves in a free State. 

Edmund W. Sehon had been in favor of a volun- 
tary resignation by Bishop Andrew, but was opposed 
to both propositions before them, as involving a forced 
resignation, which would be equivalent to punishment 
by suspension from office. 

William Winans denied that the General Confer- 
ence had any original administrative power. He 
deemed it a creature having delegated attributes and 
none others. These were few, and found in the Book 
of Discipline, and not in abstract reasoning. The 
administrative power was found only in the rules and 
regulations of the Discij^line, and did not include 
plenary power to be used at will. 

Peter Cartwright was in favor of the substitute, 
was no friend of slavery, nor yet an Abolitionist. 
But when any body told him it was none of his busi- 
ness, and he had no right to meddle with slavery, he 
begged to enter his protest. Somebody of the South 



The (iiJEAT Ckisls, ISiJr. 1(19 

had said that Bishop M'Kendree intended to have 
purchased a slave, but he had heard Bishop M'Ken- 
dree say five hundred times that if he owned a thou- 
sand slaves, he would not die a slave-holder, he would 
set them free. 

Jonathan Stamper sustained Mr. Smith's view of 
there being a compromise in the Discipline on slavery 
wdiicli would be broken by the proposed action in 
Bishop Andrew's case ; besides it would throw imped- 
iments in the way of intercourse with the benighted 
colored brethren of the South. He thought the prin- 
ciples of ultra abolitionism would result in the de- 
struction of the whole colored race. 

Samuel Dunwody discussed the character of slavery, 
arguing, from the Old Testament and from the ISTew, 
that it was not a moral evil. The excitement pro- 
duced at the South, Mr. Dunwody was informed by 
correspondents, by this discussion and proposed ac- 
tion, was such that he did not know but if the Con- 
ference broke up, another would be called in the 
South to take measures to secede from the Church 
altogether. 

Bishop Soule spoke in favor of further delibera- 
tion. He referred to the action of former General 
Conferences against agitating the question of slavery, 
questioned the power of the General Conference by 
a mere majority vote to depose a Bishop, and earnestly 
entreated them not to pass the resolution relating to 
Bishop Andrew. He favored sending the matter out 
to the Church at large to consider for the next quad- 
rennium, and then act upon a complete knowledge of 
the mind of the whole Church. 

John P. Durbin challenged Mr. Longstreet's as- 
sumed analogy between Romanism and Methodism, 



170 AXTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AXD TrIUMPH. 

vindicated the action which confirmed the suspension 
of Harding, and affirmed the entire unity of the 
Northern Conferences on one point — that the episco- 
pacy of the Methodist Episcopal Churcli ought not to 
be trammeled with slavery. He showed that the high- 
est ground ever held on slavery was taken at the very 
organization of the Churcli, and that concessions had 
been made continually from that time to this in view 
of the necessities of the South. 

The power of the episcopacy was shown to be de- 
rived from the suifrages of the General Conference, 
by which it could be removed if judged necessary. 
The Minutes of 1785 declare that " the episcopal 
office was made elective, and the elected superintend- 
ent or Bishop amenable to the body of ministers and 
preachers." The " IS'otes on the Discipline " assert that 
" the Bishops are perfectly subject to the General Con- 
ference ; their power, their usefulness, themselves, are 
entirely at the mercy " of that body. Further, Rev. 
John Dickins, in a pamphlet pubhshed in 1792, says : 
" InTow, who ever said the superiority of the Bishops 
was by virtue of a separate organization ? If this gave 
them their superiority, how came they to be remova- 
ble by the Conference ? . . . We all know Mr. As- 
bury derived his official power from the Conference, 
and therefore his office is at their disposal. . . . Mr. 
Asbury was thus chosen by the Conference, both be- 
fore and after he was ordained a Bishop ; and he is 
still considered the person of their choice by being 
responsible to the Conference, who have power to 
remove him and fill his place with another if they see 
it necessary. And as he is liable every year to be 
removed, he may be considered as their annual 
choice." And Bishop Emory declared that "this may 



The Gkeat Cpjsis, 18-M. 171 

be considered as expressing the views of Bishop As- 
bury in relation to the true and original character of 
Methodist episcopacy ;" and he gives it the sanction 
of his own authority by qnoting and using it in the 
twelfth section of the '' Defense of our Fathers." 

Mr. Durbin closed his speech by suggesting a res- 
olution referring the case to the judgment of the 
Church as that should be expressed by the General 
Conference for 18^8. 

William Capers answered the plea, that a slave- 
holding Bishop would involve the Korth, by insisting 
that the JSTorth was already involved by the unity of 
the Church and the unity of the ministry, the South- 
ern portion of which contained slave-holders; and 
that there was no way of escape from being thus in- 
extricably involved, excej)t by breaking up the Church. 

The Bishops, Joshua Soule, Elijah Hedding, Bev- 
erly Waugh, and Thomas A. Morris, subsequently 
presented a unanimous recommendation to postpone 
action for four years, from which document Bishop 
Hedding the day afterward withdrew his name. It 
was laid on the table by a vote of 95 to 83. The vote 
was then taken on the following resolution : 

WIie7'eas, The Discipline of our Church forbids the doing 
any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant general superin- 
tendency; and ichereas^ Bishop Andrew has become connected 
with slavery, by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
drawn after it circumstances which^ in the estimation of the 
General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his 
office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some 
places prevent it ; therefore 

Eesohed^ That it is the sense of this General Conference 
that he desist from the exercise of his office so long as this 
impediment remains. 

The resolution was adopted. Yeas, 111 ; nays, 69. 



172 AXTISLAVERY StEUGGLE AND TrIUMPII. 

A different conclusion was quite probable, and 
came mucli nearer being accepted than appears from 
any direct action taken. Mr. Collins proposed to 
substitute a request for the Bishop to free himself 
from connection with slavery within the ensuing four 
years. Dr. Durbin had proposed to defer action for 
four years ; and the Bishops had united in a recom- 
mendation to the same effect. 

"Abolitionists regarded this as a most alarming 
measure. Accordingly, the delegates of the 'New En- 
gland Conferences were immediately called together, 
and, after due deliberation, unanimously adopted a 
paper declaring, in substance, that it was their solemn 
conviction that if Bishop Andrew should be left by the 
Conference in the exercise of episcopal functions it 
would break up the most of our Churches in New En- 
gland ; and that the only way they could be holden 
together would be to secede in a body, and invite 
Bishop Iledding to preside over them. The propo- 
sition was also concurred in by some of our most dis- 
tinguished laymen who were present, and a com- 
mittee of two were appointed to communicate this 
action to Bishop Hedding. On the morning of 
June 1 the Bishop was fully informed of the afore- 
said action. He then publicly withdrew his name 
from the paper he and the other Bishops had signed, 
because ' facts had come to his knowledge which led 
him to believe that it would not make peace, but only 
increase the difficulty.' Thereupon the recommenda- 
tion was laid upon the table by a vote of 95 yeas to 
84 nays, showing very clearly that it would have 
carried had not Bishop Hedding withdrawn his 
name." — Hev. James Porter^ " Quarterly Review^'' 
Aprils 1871. 



The SouTiiEKx Seces.-^iox, 1S14:, IS-io. 173 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE SOUTHERN SECESSION, 1844, 1845. 

THE primitive antislaveiy sentiment of Method- 
ism, too long dormant, now qniekened by earnest 
discussion, had concentrated at a single point. The 
General Conference of 1S44, under the control of 
this sentiment, had said to the slave-holding Method- 
ists, who were constantly advancing their claims to 
toleration and indorsement, Thus far ye shall go, and 
no farther. It did not antagonize all slave-holding, 
nor explicitly condenni slavery generally, but it did 
say. There shall be no extension of the sj^here of slav- 
ery ; into the territory of the episcopacy slavery shall 
not go ; having invaded that territory without our 
knowledge or consent, we insist that it shall leave at 
once. That is " the sense of this Conference," was 
the emphatic declaration. 

" If that expression is adopted," said the represent- 
atives of the Sonth in open session, "then thirteen 
thonsand preachers and four hnndred and fifty thou- 
sand members are cut oif from the jurisdiction of this 
General Conference." And yet that opinion was 
deliberately uttered by the vote of nearly two thirds 
of the body. It was an important decision ; it as- 
sumed a great responsibility, and it was grandly signifi- 
cant of a new departure in behalf of hnman freedom. 

To mass so immense a force in position, facing the 
foe, is a work second only in power to the forward 
movement which afterward sweeps the field triumph- 



174 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

antly. And the force now massed against this ex- 
tension of slaYeiy, headed bj one hundred and eleven 
delegates, included also more than three thousand 
traveling preachers, three thousand local preachers, 
and six hundred thousand members, who were all or- 
ganically arrayed against the extension of slavery, if 
not personally committed in favor of its extirpation. 
Such was the relative strength and the positive antago- 
nism of the two sections of Methodism June 1, 1844. 

A Declaration was presented to the General Con- 
ference three days afterward from the delegates of 
the Southern and South-western Conferences, signed 
by fifty-two of them, which referred to the " agitation 
of the subject of slavery in a portion of the Church ; 
the frequent action on that subject by the General 
Conference ; and, especially, the extra-judicial pro- 
ceedings against Bishop Andrew," and stated that " a 
continuance of the jurisdiction of the General Con- 
ference over these Conferences is inconsistent with 
the success of the ministry in the slave - holding 
States." This impeachment of jurisdiction was fol- 
lowed with a protest the next day, which was more 
direct and indignant in tone, and stigmatized the ac- 
tion of the Conference as " an attempt to degrade and 
punish, a lawless prosecution, an illegal arrest, an 
anomalous quasi-suspension, imperative and manda- 
tory in form," and closed by saying, " The South can- 
not submit, and the absolute necessity of division is 
already dated." 

The General Conference answered the cavils of 
the protest by resolutions providing "that Bishop 
Andrew's name stand in the Minutes, Hymn Book, 
and Discipline as formerly ; that the rule in relation 
to the support of a Bishop:) and his family applies to 



The Southern Secession, 1S44, 1S45. 1 



iO 



Bishop Andrew ; that whether in any, and if any, in 
what, work Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be de- 
termined by his own decision and action, in relation 
to the previous action of this Conference in his case." 
And, besides this, a special committee reported a 
statement, which was adopted, declaring that ''the 
action of the General Conference was neither judicial 
nor punitive. It neither achieves a deposition nor 
so much as a legal suspension. Bishop Andrew is 
still a Bishop, and should he, against the expressed 
wish of the General Conference, proceed in the dis- 
charge of his functions, his official acts would be 
valid." 

]N"otwithstanding these unquahiied disclaimers, the 
Southern delegates moved on directly tov\"ard the dis- 
ruption of jurisdiction as suggested, and the "ante- 
dated division " named in their declaration and pro- 
test. Dr. Capers offered a proposition providing for 
jurisdiction in partnership, which, after brief consid- 
eration, was withdrawn. Eev. J. B. M'Ferrin offered 
a resolution of instruction to the Committee of Xine, 
to which had been referred the Southern declaration, 
that they " devise a constitutional plan for division, 
mutual and friendly." 

This committee, through Dr. Paine, chairman, pre- 
sented a report which very considerately said, "We 
esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet 
the emergency with Christian kindness and the strict- 
est ecjuity." And a plan was presented by them, to 
be adhered to "in the event of a separation, a con- 
tingency to which the declaration asks attention as 
not improbable." This plan indicated a boundary 
line ; provided for border Conferences, stations, and 
societies choosing their position ; recommended to the 



176 Antislaveky SniuGGLE AND Tkiumpii. 

Annual Conferences a change of the sixth restrictive 
rule ; provided contingently for the division of the 
stock and assets of the Book Concern, and resolved 
"that all the property of the Methodist Episcopal 
Clmrcli in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, 
schools, Conference funds, cemeteries, and of every 
kind, within the limits of the Southern organiza- 
tion, shall be forever free from any claim set up 
on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so 
far as this resolution can be of force in the premises.'^ 

All these provisions were conditioned upon the 
occurrence of a state of things indicated thus: "Should 
the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States 
find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical 
organization." Dr. Paine, speaking for the South, 
said : " If found necessary to keep down faction and 
prosecute their ministry at home they should feel 
bound to sepai-ate, to carry out the provisions of this en- 
actment, but not unless driven to it." " They should 
be one people until it was formally announced by 
a convention of the Southern Churches that they had 
resolved to ask an organization according to the pro- 
visions of this report." 

Such was the attitude and relation of the parties to 
this great question when, at midnight, June 10, 
1811, the General Confei'ence adjourned sine die. 
So spake the Conference of its willingness to meet 
the contingency equitably and kindly. And so said 
they of the South respecting their contingent purpose 
and method of proceeding, l^o such scene had ever 
been witnessed as had been exliibited in that hiii^hest 
tribunal of the Cliurch. And no such record of 
magnanimity, gentleness, and generous dealing finds 
a place in ecclesiastical history as that of the majority 



The Soutiiekx Secession, IS-M, 1815. 177 

of this General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. 

The morning after the adjournment, however, 
found the Soutliern delegates in session as a conven- 
tion in New York city. They proceeded to assume 
the initiative of separation, which prerogative had 
been specifically assigned, by their own consent and 
request, to the Annual Conferences. A delegated 
convention was called to meet at Louisville, Ky., 
May 1, 181:5 ; the ratio of representation was fixed, 
and an Address was issued to the ministers and mem- 
bers of the Southern States and Territories, which 
declared '' that the legislative, judicial, and adminis- 
trative action of the General Conference, as now or- 
ganized, will always be extremely hurtful, if not 
ruinous, to the Southern portion of the Church ; . . . and 
that unless the South will submit to the dictation and 
interference of the North there is no hope of any- 
thing like union and harmony." And thus the con- 
tingent plan proposed by the General Conference, 
and accepted by the Southern delegates, was virtually 
set aside by them within three days after its adop- 
tion, and a secession inaugurated. 

The Annual Conferences of the Southern States 
below Delaware and Maryland accepted the pro- 
gramme of the New York Convention, and thereby 
ignored the plan adopted at the General Conference. 
The Louisville Convention, May 17, 1845, by a vote 
of 94 to 3, separated from the Church, and consti- 
tuted a new body known as " The Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South." 

Meanwhile, the proposed change in the sixth re-d- 

strictive rule was being submitted to all the AnnuaUe 

Conferences, and was not adopted. There lacked ^ 
12 



178 Antislaveey Struggle and Triumph. 

269 votes of the three-fonrths majority required, and 
therefore the division and transfer of the capital and 
produce of the Rook Concern was disallowed. The 
negative vote was 1,070. The opposition, numbering 
one thousand traveling preachers, was largely in- 
creased before the ensuing General Conference, as 
w^as manifest by the election of delegates thereto. 
Only forty-one, out of one hundred and eleven who 
were members in 1811:, were elected to the Confer- 
ence of 1848, and eleven of these had voted against 
the plan. Various influences combined to affect this 
result. Opposition upon conscientious and constitu- 
tional grounds w^as alleged by many. The unauthor- 
ized precipitate action of the I^ew York Convention 
of Southern delegates, and the disregard of the con- 
tingent boundary line, and the consequent strife and 
invasions of I^orthern territory following, was re- 
garded as a repudiation of the plan by those who had 
favored it at the IN'orth. 

Anticipating the history of the ensuing General Con- 
ference in part, it is noted that immediate and ear- 
nest attention was given to questions connected with 
the disruption of the Church. They were referred 
to a committee of forty-six, two from each of twenty- 
three Conferences, the first day, whose report was 
adopted May 26. In a vote of 143, sometimes one 
dissented, and never more than sixteen, on any one 
of four declarations. The first stated a principle : 
^' That there exists no power in tlie General Confer- 
ence to effectuate, authorize, or sanction a division of 
.the- Church," The second declaration affirmed the 
tnviolability of the right of Church membership, 
J 'unless guilty of a violation of its rules." The 
third declaration set forth the universal right of trial 



The Southekn Secession, 1844, 1$45. 179 

and appeal, declaring also that separation from the 
Church otherwise contravenes constitutional right. 
The fourth declaration stated the character, contin- 
gency, and conditions of the provisional plan, with 
sundry contraventions thereof and the consequences. 
These points were embraced in eight items recon- 
structed from the one lengthy paragraj)h of the 
original report, amended by Dr. Matthew Simpson 
of Indiana, and Dr. Daniel Curry of Kew York, and 
accepted as a substitute in substance as follows : 
1. The report of the committee of nine adopted in 
1844 w^as intended to meet a necessity which it was 
alleged might arise. 2. A part of its regulations were 
made dependent upon the concurrence of three 
fourths of the members of the several Annual Confer- 
ences. 3. It was made dependent also upon the ob- 
servance of certain provisions respecting a boundary 
by the ecclesiastical connection separating from us, 
should such connection be formed. 4. Without wait- 
ing for the anticipated necessity, action was taken in 
the premises by the Southern delegates. 5. The An- 
nual Conferences have refused to concur with that 
part of the plan submitted to them. 6. The provis- 
ions respecting a boundary have been violated by 
the highest authorities of said connection which sep- 
arated from us, and the peace and harmony of many 
of our Societies have been destroyed. 7. 'No obliga- 
tion exists on the part of this Conference to observe 
the provisions of said plan, in view of the facts and 
principles in these declarations. 8. Therefore the 
plan is hereby declared null and void. 

The committee designate the action of the separa- 
tists as ^'revolutionary," in contravention of the 
" plan," " reducing it to a nullity by the violation of 



180 AnTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

its first great and fundamental condition; . . . and 
as an abandonment of the plan proposed by the 
General Conference. . . . And hence, that for the 
reason above alleged the plan has been of no real 
force since the date of the Call and Address issued 
by the ISTew York Convention, June 11, 1844." So 
thought the General Conference of 1848 by unani- 
mously adopting the report. 

The opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
States was otherwise, however. In support of its 
decision awarding to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, the portion claimed for it of the common 
fund in the Book Concern at l!^ew York and Cincin- 
nati, the Court said : 

" We do not agree that this division was made with- 
out the proper authority. On the contrary, w^e enter- 
tain no doubt but that the General Conference of 
1844 was competent to make it. . . . The same au- 
thority which founded that Church in 1Y84 has di- 
vided it and established two separate and independ- 
ent organizations, occupying the place of the old one." 
— ^''Formal Fraternity ^^ jp. 39. 

The Church South on its own behalf, through its 
College of Bishops, as recently as May 11, 1869, offi- 
cially reiterated its uniform declaration as to the 
cause of separation. In reply to a communication 
from the Board of Bishops of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, through Bishops Janes and Simpson, it 
is said by Bishops Paine and M'Tyeire : " You say 
that the great cause which led to the separation from 
us of both the Wesleyan Methodists of this country 
and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has 
passed away. ... If we understand your reference we 
BO far dif er ivoia you m opijaioa that it may help any 



TiiE Southern Secessiox, 1844, 1845. 181 

negotiations hereafter taking place, to restate our po- 
sition. Slavery was not, in any proper sense, the 
cause, but the occasion only, of that separation, the 
necessity of which Ave regretted as much as you. 
But certain principles were developed in relation to 
the political aspects of that question, involving the 
right of ecclesiastical bodies to handle and determine 
matters outside of their proper jurisdiction, which we 
could not accept; and, in a case arising, certain con- 
structions of the constitutional powers and preroga- 
tives of the General Conference were assumed and 
acted on which we considered oppressive and destruc- 
tive of the rights of the numerical minority repre- 
sented in that highest judicatory of the Church. 
That which you are pleased to call, no doubt sincerely 
thinking it so, ' the great cause ' of separation, existed 
in the Church from its organization, and yet for sixty 
years there was no separation. But when those the- 
ories incidentally evolved in connection with it be- 
gan to be put in practice, then the separation came." 
— ''^Formal Fraternity, ^^ p. 11. 



182 AnTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 



CHAPTEK XYII. 



O]^ the Northern border of the thirteen Annual 
Conferences which were identified with the 
Church South, are four Annual Conferences of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church — the Baltimore, Phila- 
delphia, Pittsburgh, and Ohio — which had within 
their limits the States of Maryland, Delaware, and 
part of Virginia. This border-land became a field of 
strife between the two Churches, as the contingent 
plan of 1844 had provided for border Conferences, 
circuits, and Societies making choice between remain- 
ing with the old Church or adhering to the new 
organization. 

The considerations of identity with the South in 
local interests and institutions, the antislavery tend- 
encies of the I^orth, with the possible exchision here- 
after of all slave-holders from the communion of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, were freely urged by 
the friends of the Church South in their own behalf ; 
and it became the natural and necessary work of the 
friends of the old Church to offset these considera- 
tions, and save the border from disturbance as far as 
possible. And to accomplish this all the energies of 
the Church for a time were concentrated u[X)n it as 
an object of supreme importance. The influence of 
the course pursued in this emergency was seen quickly 
in the temporary suspension of antislavery activity at 
the North and East, and the earnest vindication of 



The Bordek Conferences, 1845-1847. 183 

the " Discipline as it is," became the rallying cry of 
the Metliodist Episco^^al Church very generally. 

The Church South had left the rule and the section 
on slavery unchanged. They did not expunge the 
rule against slavery until their General Conference 
of 1858. The same words were used against slavery 
in both Disciplines. They could not, then, be re- 
proached with having disturbed the modified testi- 
mony of the fathers on that subject, while the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church was charged by them with 
designing to add tliereto. " It is only a question of 
time," said they, with much plausibility, in view of 
the antislavery memorials sent up to the General 
Conferences for the twelve years previous to the sep- 
aration. And when, at the first General Conference 
of the Church South, the subject of change was can- 
vassed by them. Bishop Andrew said, '^ It would be 
extremely hazardous to attempt any change. If the 
tenth section be removed the border might suffer." 
Mr. Sullens said, " That they were in trouble in East 
Tennessee, and that he hoj)ed they would not increase 
the trouble of that region by the change in the Dis- 
cipline on the subject of slavery." Dr. Winans said, 
"It is not important to repeal it, and such repeal 
might bring on them the charge of being a pro-slav- 
ery Church." And in order to urge the lay mem- 
bers of Kentucky and Missouri into the new Church, 
Messrs. Parsons and Boyle, leading men, had pledged 
that the Discipline should not be changed. ('' Great 
Secession," col. 559.) And it was not for several 
years. 

The official j)a23ers of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church were very full and explicit in their assur- 
ances, also, that there would be no change in its 



184 Antislavery Stkuggle and Triumph. 

Discipline on that question. And the Annual Con- 
ferences on the border reiterated the statement, and 
repudiated all sympathy for, or identity with, the 
modern abolition sentiment of the [Rorth and East. 
The Baltimore Conference of 1846 said, '^ That this 
Conference disclaims having any fellowship with abo- 
litionism. On the contrary, while it is determined 
to maintain its well-known and long-established po- 
sition of keeping the traveling preachers composing 
its own body free from slavery, it is also determined 
not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical body 
that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of mem- 
bership in the Church, but to stand by and maintain 
the Discipline as it is." The Philadelphia Confer- 
ence of 1816 said, " That we will abide by the Disci- 
pline of the Church as it is, and will resist every 
attempt to alter it in reference to slavery so as to 
change the terms of membershij)." 

Besides these Conferences others at the North took 
similar positions. The Oneida Conference of 1845 
said : " We ask for no change in discipline or funda- 
mental policy. And, finally, the sympathies of this 
Conference are most cordially tendered to those 
brethren who, beyond the proposed line of separation 
between the IS'orth and South, are still disposed to 
adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and we 
hereby pledge them any aid which circumstances 
may allow us to render them." The Providence 
Conference of 1845 also said, " That we are satisfied 
with the Discipline of the Church as it is on the sub- 
ject of slavery ; and as we have never projoosed any 
alteration in it, so neither do we now ; and that, in 
connection with our brethren of the other Confer- 
ences, we will ever abide by it." And again, in 1847, 



The Border Conferences, 1845-1847, 185 

they "pledge themselves to maintain the same con- 
servative and trne antislaverj ground by which the 
Providence Conference has already become distin- 
guished. " 

There seemed to be a correct summary of the facts 
at this period in the remarks of Dr. Bond, then editor 
of the " Christian Advocate : " " We learned, during 
our visit to Providence, New England, and Maine 
Conferences, (1845,) that the membership, as well as 
the more efficient and useful of the ministers, longed 
for repose. They were weary of the long strife of 
abolition controversy, and had resolved, if j)ossible, to 
prevent the agitation of the subject in the Churches. 
Upon the whole we may confidently assure our 
brethren elsewhere that no furious ultraism, no rash, 
impracticable measures are to be expected hereafter 
from our ]^ew England brethren. We believe that 
excesses and extravagances are as likely to be rebuked 
by the present sound opinions, good temper, and pious 
feeling of the I^ew England ministry and member- 
ship as in any other part of the Union." And so also 
judged Dr. Stevens, then editor of "Zion's Herald," 
who copied and indorsed this statement. There was 
a temporary suspension of antislavery activity, caused 
by sympathy with the general solicitude for the peace 
and harmony of the border. 

A paper in " Zion's Herald," however, appeared, 
signed by Kev. James Porter and other leading Abo- 
litionists of New England, headed, " Things as They 
Are," which took issue with the editors of the "Advo- 
cate and Journal," and of "Zion's Herald," giving 
all parties to understand that abolitionism was in full 
force. The editor of the " Western Advocate " fell 
upon the writer with great violence, but refused to 



186 Antislayery Steuggle and Triumph. 

allow him to reply in liis j)aper to tlie extent of one 
Yrord — an injustice afterward confessed privately. 
The South made good use of " Things as They Are," 
believing it to be a correct statement, as indeed it 
was. — Porter^ " History of Methodism^'' jp. 459. 

The strife, however, was severe and prolonged. 
The friends of the Chnrch South gave prominence 
to the outcry against abolitionism. That was the 
strong argument, or prejudice, made nse of, and the 
excitement was pushed to the climax of mob vio- 
lence, sometimes through the denunciation of JN^orth- 
ern preachers by the friends of the Church South, 
who called them " abolitionists, incendiaries, revolu 
tionists, and traitors." Even the Southern Methodist 
press stigmatized the Methodist Episcopal Chnrch as 
an "Abolition Church," and declared its jurisdiction 
anywhere in the slave-holding States to be " an enor- 
mity that enlightened public sentiment cannot, and 
will not, tolerate." The natural results followed. 

On Sunday, July 12, 1846, Eev. Valentine Gray, 
preacher in charge of Northampton Circuit, Philadel- 
phia Conference, when about to commence services 
in the Salem Church, w\as assailed by a mob, seized, 
and forcibly taken out of the pulpit and church — and 
the next day he was driven from Eastville, the seat 
of justice for the county, by a mob, without redress 
or protection, and his life threatened if he did not 
leave the county. The alleged cause was, that he 
w^as a ]N^orthern preacher, but the essential fact, ante- 
dating it, was a lecture by a friend of the Church 
South, in which Northern preachers were stigmatized 
as all Abolitionists " who would sow dangerous opin- 
ions among the slaves." 

A public meeting w^as held in Accomac County 



The Boedek Conferp:nces, 1845-18^7. 1S7 

presided over by Judge Scarborough, to discuss the 
necessity of Virginia Methodists all withdrawing from 
the Philadelphia Conference, and uniting with the 
Yiro'inia Conference of the Church South. A labored 
argument, in pamphlet form, was published and cir- 
culated extensively by the judge. 

Rev. J. Hargis, of the Philadelphia Conference, 
was mobbed at Guilford, Accomac County, while 
preaching on the Sabbath day, Is^ovember 26, 1846. 
And a few months later the " Christian Advocate and 
Journal" was formally presented by the grand jury 
of that county as an incendiary sheet inciting slaves 
to rebellion, and forbidding its circulation through 
the post-offices ; notice whereof was sent to all the 
postmasters. An attempt to drive out the preacher 
on Accomac Circuit was defeated by the superior 
number and iirmness of the Church members. But 
a few months subsecpiently one of the preachers 
was advised by the brethren to leave the circuit, as 
the persecution was made to burn more fiercely by 
an inflammatory speech of an influential Southern 
preacher, in July, 1847. 

Similar influences were at work in that part of 
Yii'ginia which was embraced in the Ohio Confer- 
ence. A mob was provoked at Parkersburgh, and 
for a time succeeded in keeping away the preacher, 
Mr. Dillon. The grand jury for the Superior Court 
of Wood County also made presentment of the 
" Western Christian Advocate," as " an incendiary 
publication, printed with the intent to make insur- 
rection within the Commonwealth of Virginia." 
This was procured through the agency of Prosecut- 
ing- Attorney Jackson's zealous hostility, and after a 
charge to the jury by Judge M' Comas, which was an 



18S AXTIST.AVEKY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPII. 

attempt at a scriptural argument in favor of the 
divine right of slavery. Thereupon to read the "Ad- 
vocate," or even receive it by public or private con- 
veyance, was deemed an act of felony, and the person 
"convicted thereof shall be punished by imprison- 
ment in the penitentiary of this Commonwealth, for 
a term not less than two years, nor more than five 
years." The indictment was noticed by the Rich- 
mond and Xashville "Advocates" as a thing to be 
regretted, and yet to be expected, and really deserved. 
It was condemned in decided terms by tlie J^orthern 
press. Large lists of new subscribers were forwarded 
from the Xorth, giving substantial proof of approba- 
tion, and repairing all damage suffered by diminished 
circulation. (See Dr. Elliott's " Great Secession.") 

These will suffice as specimen cases of violent per- 
secution in the interests of the Church South, al- 
though not by its agency directly. It seemed an im- 
mediate advantage to them probably, but made many 
life -long conservatives on the slavery question see 
cause for becoming very decided Abolitionists soon 
afterward. Tliis strife annoyed the friends of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church not a little for a time, 
but it did deadly work for slavery in the long run. 
That which could not be reasoned with was deemed 
madness, and that which could not brook the sight of 
an opponent demonstrated itself to be tyranny. The 
mad tyrant, slavery, thereby procured its own ver- 
dict, and was doomed to death, although sentence 
against tliat evil thing was not executed speedily. 



The General Co^sFerexce of 1848. 189 



CHAPTEE XYIII. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1848. 

THE exciting affairs along the border, and the pro- 
tracted discussion thereon, joined with the action 
of the Anmial Conferences on the question of provid- 
ing for a division of the capital and assets of the 
Book Concern, had diverted the attention of the 
Church from the antislavery discussion. And at the 
General Conference of 1848 there was no committee 
on slavery appointed, and only one memorial reported 
on that subject, which Kev. James Floy presented 
from Middletown, Conn. That went to the Com- 
mittee on the State of the Church. 

In that committee, or growing out of its action, 
the only discussion of slavery during the session oc- 
curred. It was brief and inconclusive, however. 
The committee rej^orted in part. May 5, as follows : 

'• That they have had under consideration the letter 
from the Kev. Dr. Pierce, and that they recommend 
to the General Conference the adoption of the fol- 
lowing preamble and resolutions : Whereas, a letter 
from Rev. L. Pierce, D.D., delegate of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, proposing fraternal rela- 
tions between the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the Methodist EpiscojDal Church, South, has been pre- 
sented to this Conference; and, whereas, there are 
serious questions and difficulties existing between the 
two bodies, therefore : Resolved, That while we ten- 
der to tlie Jlev. Dr. Pierce all personal courtesies, 



190 Antislayery Steuggle and Teiumph. 

and inYite liim to attend our sessions, this General 
Conference does not consider it proper at present to 
enter into fraternal relations with the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South." 

This report, was amended, on motion of Dr. Tom- 
linson, thus: ''■Provided^ howcYer, that nothing in 
this resolution sliall be so constrained as to operate as 
a bar to any propositions from Dr. Pierce, or any 
other representative of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, toward the settlement of existing 
difficulties between that body and this." In support 
of this amendment Dr. Tomlinson said : " The sym- 
pathies of this General Conference are entirely on the 
side of liberty. But he would now say, although it 
was a little j)remature and was a painful fact, that the 
prcYailing sympathies of the Church South were on 
the side of slavery. And he would .now express the 
opinion, as a conscientious man, tliat he could not 
fraternize with that Church as a genuine branch of 
the Wesley an Methodist family. He would say, ou 
the other hand, that if they wished to break up the 
Methodist Episcopal Church they would do so by 
fraternizing with the Church South." Others, from 
different considerations, favored the -amendment. 
It prcYailed — 147 yeas ; nays, none. 

When reporting this action for the columns of 
" Zion's Herald," the editor, Kev. Abel Stevens, 
wrote : 

This morning the report of the Committee on the State of 
the Church brought the subject before the full Conference. It 
was a momentous hour, for this question is important not only 
for the peace of the Church, but vastly so in its relations to 
the enormous evil of slavery. The discussion on it in the 
Conference was solemn and impressive, and you have the' re- 



The General Conference of 1848. 191 

suit — a unanimous affirmative vote for the report of the com- 
mittee. It may not be an unworthy ground of congratula- 
tion that the preamble and resolution by which this great 
body has thus remarkably expressed itself, on this the gravest 
question before it, is of New England origin. And the inter- 
est of this fact is enhanced greatly to all New England Meth- 
odists by the consideration that tlie West — tlie noble West — 
sustained the preamble and resolution manfully in the com- 
mittee; they were seconded by Dr. Elliott. All amendments 
proposed in the committee and in the Conference failed, ex- 
cept the explanatory proviso of Dr. Tomlinson. They were 
numerous, but the language of the report was at last agreed 
to as the best we could harmonize on. It is certainly suffi- 
ciently courteous and definite. 

This important act is not only a declinature of fraternal re- 
lations, but its whole import is a verdict against slavery and 
ecclesiastical alliance with slavery. It was the design of the 
framer of the preamble and resolution that the phrase "seri- 
ous question and difficulties" should include not only the 
ecclesiastical "difficulties" between the bodies, but the 
"question " of slavery ; it was so explained in the committee, 
and indeed who does not know that the relation of the Church 
South to slavery is the great point of obstruction to such rela- 
tions as it proposes. The action of the Conference on the 
subject is, therefore, a most solemn and emphatic protest 
against slavery. The unanimity of the act stamps it wdth 
peculiar significance. Let it go forth, then, that the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church rejects all alliance with pro-slavery 
ecclesiastical bodies. It has taken its stand, and will never, 
we trust, depart. 

On the 24th of May the order of the day was sus- 
pended by the motion of Rev. J. B. Finley, " to cor- 
rect certain misrepresentations which have been made 
concerning the sentiments of the Conference." The 
above extract was read by the secretary, and Mr. 
Stevens took the floor. 

He explained the history of the matter. The delegations 
from the East had come here virtually instructed to protest 



102 AXTISLAVEKY STRUGGLE AXD TkIUMPH, 

against the pro-slavery character of the Methodist Episcopal 
Churcli, South, by rejecting all overtures of fraternization 
with it. The division of the vested funds was an important 
question with the people of the East; the abolition of the 
oppressive boundary act was of still higher importance to 
them; but paramount, supremely paramount, to tliese was the 
question of fraternization with the South ; and I avow here 
distinctly, and let your reporter send forth the avowal to the 
people of the East, and to the people of all this land — I avow 
that the hostility of our people, and of all of us their delega- 
tions here, to the recognition of the Church South, is based 
on the consideration for which the Wesley ans of England, 
the Churches of Protestant Christendom, the civilized world 
protest to-day against — slavery. We question not unquali- 
fiedly the individual piety of the Church South, but in its 
organic position it stands as a mighty rampart about that 
enormous evil ; in its collective character we denounce it. 
But let me not be misunderstood here. The Methodists of 
the East must not be confounded with any class of ultraists. 
Troubles they have had, indeed, growing out of the question 
of slavery. Those who were not of them, and therefore have 
gone out from them, spread desolation among their altars; 
but those altars have been repaired and flame up with the 
divine fire. Methodism in the East stands erect — erect on 
the integrity of old- fashioned autislavery JMethodism, as the 
antislavery writings of Wesley, and the antislavery protests 
scattered all through the history of our Discipline, charac- 
terize primitive Methodism. I stand here, sir, a member of 
no other antislavery society than the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. As such I have acted here against the South; and 
I believe a large majority of this Conference voted on the 
question referred to in the character of antislavery Meth- 
odists. 

I repeat that, standing on this Methodistic antislavery po- 
sition, the Methodists of the East have looked to their dele- 
gates to reject the overtures of the South, chiefly because of 
its pro-slavery character, and especially because it has allowed 
slavery to intrude into and desecrate the highest function of 
the ministry, contrary to the usages transmitted by our fa- 
thers; and they have expected us to do so frankly and maa- 



The General Conference of 1848. 193 

fully, and without diss^nise. The delegates from the East, on 
their way hither, consulted respecting their duty in the prem- 
ises; they will bear me testimony here, that it was their de- 
termination to demand not only resolutions against fraterni- 
zation, but a full report — an exposition — a candid, conclusive, 
demonstrative exposition of the character of American slav- 
ery, the relations of the Church South to it, and our conse- 
quent refusal of its fellowship. But on our route we met our 
brethren of the border; we learned their critical difficulties; 
we sympathized with them; and I affirm here, that no part 
of our work sympathizes more profoundly with those afflicted 
brethren than New England. Her delegates showed their 
sympathy in the present instances. Believing that the pro- 
posed report might be misconstrued to their harm, we aban- 
doned the design. We went further, and made every possi- 
ble concession to them in the Committee on the State of the 
Church. Brethren of all parties will witness that in that 
committee I stood up incessantly imploring that in all verbal 
matters, in all points but essential principles, we should con- 
cede to the brethren of the border. The purpose of an elab- 
orate report being abandoned, it was insisted by some that 
our resolutions should at least be specific, and specify slavery 
among the reasons of our declinature. Even this was aban- 
doned, and a more general phraseology admitted, namely: 
"questions and difficulties." I had the honor, sir, to frame 
the preamble and resolution which you adopted ; and in using 
the phrase mentioned, I designed and explained before the 
committee that while the word " difficulties " comprehended 
the misconstructions and infractions of the plan of separation, 
the word "questions" comprised the subjects of slavery, and 
the relations of the Church South thereto. The committee, 
I believe, voted with this distinct understanding. They can 
witness. 

Having thus, in consideration of the delicate circumstances 
of our border brethren, abandoned the high ground which 
we should have otherwise felt called upon to assume, it was 
necessary that our people at home should be guarded against 
a misapprehension of our position. It has heretofore been 
alleged by our enemies that Northern men have in the Gen- 
eral Conference, like Northern men in Congress, cowered 
13 



194 Antisl AVERY Stettggle ant> Teitjmph. 

before the brass front of slavery. We knew the expectationg 
of our people, and we knew that if the general language of 
the resolution were not explained, it would again be said we 
bad succumbed — that the resolution had been forced upon 
us — foisted upon us. "What shall we do, then? Why, we tell 
them that we ourselves originated the resolution. I hope 
brethren have no quarrel with this; it would be child's play 
to complain here; for the facts relating to the history of this 
affair are known to the committee. We tell them, also, the 
sense of the resolution, as we understood and asserted it in 
committee. It was necessary for our honor and security tiiat 
we should do so. The explanation may have been too early- 
it might have been safer for others, if not for ourselves, to 
have delayed it ; but it was quite natural for us not to have 
thouglit so. The explanation was written at yonder table, 
immediately after tlie solemn moment in which the impor- 
tant measure was adopted. It was written under the convic- 
tion that the hour of a great achievement in our history had 
just passed. 

I little supposed that such an act, declining the recogni- 
tion of a great religious body, was formally or chiefly on 
ecclesiastical squabbles ; that, while the world is ringing with 
remonstrances against slavery, we were acting on a matter so 
intimately connected with it, and yet did not consider it the 
highest, gravest reason of our action. Sir, if I was mistaken, 
tlie mistake ought certainly to be considered excusable. 

But I was not mistaken. I introduced this article yester- 
day to the committee where the resolution was prepared, 
and if unusual demonstrations there have any meaning, they 
sustained my sense of the resolution. I have not denied 
other reasons than slavery for our course; the article expressly 
refers to the phrase " difliculties" as comprehending others, 
but it aflirnis that the " question " of slavery was the great 
reason; and I here declare, without qualification, that I under- 
stood a large majority of the committee to mean this; that I 
understood the vote of the Conference to mean this; and 
I wish it to I)e understood, here and elsewhere, that thus I 
voted, and would have never voted otherwise. 

What, sir! will brethren say that slavery was not an essen- 
tial consideration in this extraordinary measure? Would we 



The General Conference of 1848. 195 

presume before tlie world to have cast away the brotherly 
overtures of the South merely or chiefly because of miscon- 
structions or infractions of a boundary arrangement? Would 
not the world call upon us indignantly, as honest and honor- 
able men, to accept of fraternization and appoint committees 
to adjust these comparatively small troubles, and live on in 
brotherhood, if these were onr only or principal reasons? I 
say here boldly, that if brethren insist upon this construction 
of the resolution, we are bound in honor to reconsider and 
rescind it, and recognize the fellowship of the South. We 
did not mean slavery! Did we then mean that if the other 
obstacles or difficulties were out of the way, the proslavery 
position of the Church Soutli would not be an obstruction to 
fraternization? Is it then to be understood that, after resist- 
ing slavery in the episcopacy to the very dissolution of the 
union of the Church, we would, nevertheless, receive to our 
communion the slave-holding Church with its slave-holding 
episcopacy which our rc^sistance had cast away from us? 
Sir, this is not the sentiment of the Methodists of these free 
States; this was not the sentiment of the vote of tills Confer- 
ence. If I am herein mistaken, let me know it. I will make 
repaiation. I will send forth an acknowledgment of my mis- 
apprehension; but hear me: while God gives me strength to 
stand up, I will labor to bring about a different and a better 
sentiment. I am astonished, sir — I am astonished at this 
interference with the rights of the press, in a matter so ob- 
vious — so palpable. 

Two members of tlie Baltimore Conference fol- 
lowed. Rev. John Davis said : '' It was stated in the 
Committee on the State of the Church, distinctly, 
that it could not reject Dr. Pierce on the abstract 
ground of slavery — that the Discipline of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, on that subject, is 
identical with ours ; the witness against the great evil 
of slavery stands out in as bold relief as in our own 
book. Besides, slavery is not now a difficulty exist- 
ing, to be settled between us and the Church South, 



196 Antislavekt Struggle and Triumph. 

and it could not, therefore, be consistently and prop- 
erly referred to as a ground of refusal to receive Dr. 
Pierce. There were other reasons, no doubt, in the 
minds of some of the members of the committee for 
the course adopted, such, for instance, as the connec- 
tion of slavery with the episcopacy in the Church 
South. It was so stated in the subcommittee, and 
with this and one or two other exceptions, the ques- 
tion of slavery was never mentioned in either com- 
mittee. Certainly this Conference never intended to 
give utterance to the sentiments contained in that ar- 
ticle. It would be our ruin." 

Rev. John A. Collins would refer the communica- 
tion of A. Stevens to a committee of hve, but the 
motion to suspend the rules was laid on the table; 
and no correction of the misrepresentations was made 
by the Conference. 

Subsequently, the Southern Methodist papers 
quoted Mr. Stevens' construction of the language of 
the General Conference, and these facts, as an argu- 
ment against the Methodist Episcopal Church along 
the border. But Dr. George Peck, chairman of the 
committee that reported the language, then editor of 
the " Christian Advocate and Journal," Xew York 
city, denied most unequivocally that it had any such 
application, or could be properly construed to mean 
any thing about slavery. 

Whatever uncertainty may attach itself to the exact 
intent and meaning which a majority of that commit- 
tee associated with the words " serious questions and 
difficulties," or however equivocal the position of any 
member of that committee on the question of slavery, 
there is no uncertainty nor equivocation in the action 
of June 1, on motion of J. J. Steadman of the Erie 



The General Conference of 1848. 197 

Conference, which rescinded the resolution of 1840, 
that had declared slave-owners eligible to the various 
offices of the ministry. The resolution on colored 
testimony having been rescinded four years previous- 
ly, the Church was now redeemed from the reproach 
of all that most objectionable legislation in the inter- 
est of slavery wdiich was enacted at the Baltimore 
General Conference. 

The absence of antislavery petitions at the General 
Conference in Pittsburgh was accej^ted by some as 
evidencing the close of the agitation in the Church 
on that subject. But subsequent facts so completely 
refute this assumption that another more satisfactory 
explanation is needed. Perhaps it may be given by 
the fact, that it was very generally believed for a long 
time, by the mass of the membership of the Church, 
that the separation of the South had wholly removed 
slavery from the Methodist Episcopal Church, or 
would do so by drawing all Methodist slave-holders 
within the communion of the Church South. 



198 AxTISLAYEPvY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 



CHAPTEE XIX. 

CORRELATED ANTISLAYERY ACTION. 

THE citizen is nowhere else so identified with 
the goYcrnment, and so directly responsible for 
its action, as in the United States of America. And 
every Christian is bound, by " the two great com- 
mandments which require him to Ioyc God supreme- 
ly, and his neighbor as himself, so to order all his 
indiv^idual and social and political acts as to render to 
God entire and absolute obedience, and to secure to 
all men the enjoyment of every natural right, as well 
as to promote the greatest happiness of each in the 
possession and exercise of such rights." — '^American 
Wesley an Discipline^'' Articles of Religion^ YII. 
Slavery denied God's right to the supreme regard of 
every slave. It would destroy the slave man's right 
to himself. It assumed to veto the law of love. It 
made merchandise of his most sacred instincts, virtue 
being a salable quality ; and reputation for piety 
being held at a premium, the price of a human soul 
was graded according to the measure of the Spirit 
of God dwelling therein. The horrible indictment 
needs no further extension to demonstrate that slav- 
ery embodied every element of hatred to humanity 
and of opposition to God. Toward such a system 
Christian duty and the responsibility of the citizen 
were exactly equal. 

Christian duty, therefore, was recognized by many 
citizens as including such a use of political power as 



Correlated Antislavery Action. 199 

would eventually repeal all legislation in support of 
slavery by national authority. By the autliority of the 
whole people the return of fugitive slaves had been 
guaranteed in 1T93 ; slavery had been extended over 
free territory ; the African slave-trade was connived at 
from 1808 onward; the slave-trade between the States 
was allowed ; slavery and the slave-trade were prac- 
ticed at the capital ; and last, and not least, of all, the 
so-called "Omnibus Bill," in 1850, practically enacted 
the unlimited expansion of black slavery over the en- 
tire rej^ublic, and made slaves, virtually, of white citi- 
zens, so far as the compulsory service of catching and 
holding slaves might enslave freemen. The responsi- 
bility for all this was equally shared by all the citizens 
of all the States, both Northern and Southern. And 
furthermore, the slave laws of the respective slave 
States, and the black laws of many of the free States, 
added to the responsibility and burden of this great 
national crime. 

The first efforts to ]3erform duty in this direction 
were by discussion, conventions, and petition. Kev. 
George Bourne, a Presbyterian of Virginia, in 1809 
freely canvassed this question, and published a book 
ten years afterward, in 'New York, which stirred uj) 
other agencies in later years. Elias Hicks, the dis- 
senting Friend, published, in 1814, a work on African 
slavery, denying the right of property in slaves, and 
affirming Wesley's old doctrine as to the equal guilt 
of men-stealers and slave-holders. Benjamin Lundy, 
a member of Friends' meeting, formed in 1815 an 
antislavery organization — " The Union Flumane Soci- 
ety"- — v/hich within a few months had nearly five 
hundred members, residents of several counties ad- 
jacent to Wheeling, Yirginia. J^umeroug addresses 



y 



200 Antislayery Steuggle and Triumph. 

on slavery were delivered by him in Xorth Carolina, 
and twelve societies organized within three years, 
numbering three thonsand members, comprising many 
persons of position and eminence/'^ 

" The American Convention for the Abolition of 
Slavery" was held in Baltimore in the year 1826. 
Eighty-one societies were represented, seventy-three 
being located in slave-holding States. There were 
then one hundred and forty societies in existence, of 
which one hundred and six were in the Southern 
States. Mr. Lundy's influence brought that conven- 
tion together. A County Convention, held in Ohio 
the next year, passed a resolution that its members 
would support no persons for office wdio were not 
oj^posed to slavery. Mr. Lundy then said of this ac- 
tion: "If the friends of geimine republicanism w^ould 
act upon that principle a change for the better would 
soon be witnessed. The people of the free States 
guarantee the oppression of the colored man. Slav- 
ery is no States-rights matter. All the citizens of the 
republic are interested in its extinction, and if w^e 
ever abolish it the influence and government of the 
United States must effect it. The question of abol- 
ishing slavery, when it shall be acted on, must be 
settled by ballot." 

William Lloyd Garrison, then a Calvinist Baptist 
and a strict Sabbatarian, became identified with Mr. 
Lundy, a Quaker, in 1828, and entered upon his pub- 
lic antislavery career. He says : " JSTow if I have in 
any way, however humble, done any thing toward 
calling attention to slavery, or bringing about the glo- 
rious prospect of a complete jubilee in our country at 

* This and several pages following are compiled mainly from Henry 
"Wilson's " Slave Power," vol. i. 



Correlated Antislayeky Action. 201 

no distant clay, I feel that I owe every thing in this 
matter, instru mentally and under God, to Benjamin 
Lnndy." As early as 1834 Mr. Garrison advocated the 
organization of a Christian party in politics. Professor 
Follen suggested, two years later, a new j^rogressive 
democratic party, of which the abolition of slavery 
should be a fundamental principle. 

For several years, however, political action was 
limited to petitioning Congress in favor of anti- 
slavery enactments. The result, reached after much 
earnest effort and great expense, was the annual 
adoption, by the national House of Eepresentatives, 
of a resolution which, in 1840, became a standing 
rule, that refused to receive or entertain any " peti- 
tion, memorial, resolution, or any paper" on the sub- 
ject of antislavery legislation. Then followed the 
plan of questioning candidates for public office and 
voting for the most friendly, whether Whig or Dem- 
ocrat. In 1838 William H. Seward, then candidate 
for Governor of New York, w^as largely supported 
by the Abolitionists on this ground. Millard Fill- 
more, then candidate for Congress in New York, and 
Caleb Gushing, a candidate for Congress in Massa- 
chusetts, were also supported for the same cause by 
antislavery men. But the action of Fillmore and 
Gushing did not correspond with their antislavery 
words when party interests were at stake. 

The necessity for a more positive course of action 
was manifest to many Abolitionists. But now Mr. 
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and their immediate fol- 
lowers deprecated the use of political action, and 
denounced those who favored the formation of a 
political antislavery party. The Convention held at 
Albany, in May, 1839, issued an address favoring 



202 Antislaa'ery Struggle and Triumph. 

political action in general terms. A county conven- 
tion was held at Rochester, Kew York, at which 
Myron Holley led the way in securing the adoption 
of a series of resolutions and an address enjoining 
the duty of a distinct political organization. This 
was followed by the action of the 'New York State 
Antislavery Society, January, 1840, which issued a 
call for a ^National Convention at Albany on the first 
day of April ensuing, to discuss " the question of an 
independent nomination of Abolition candidates for 
President and Yice-president of the United States, 
and, if thought expedient, to make such nominations 
for the friends of freedom to suj)port at the next 
election." Much opposition existed. The State Socie- 
ties for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut 
unanimously condemned this movement as unauthor- 
ized, unnecessary, and premature. But the Conven- 
tion assembled. Only six States were represented. 
One hundred and twenty-one delegates were present. 
Seventeen only came from outside of New York 
State. ^^ 

Such names as Myron Holley, Alvan Stewart, Ger- 
rit Smith, Henry B. Stanton, Luther Lee, Orange 
Scott, Lewis Tappan, William Goodel, and Benja- 
min Shaw, to those who knew them, gave ample 
guarantee of large will, strong purpose, and tireless 
energy, well adapted to this beginning of a new 
national departure from the old political landmarks. 
Of these men the first-named was recognized as the 
father of the Liberty Party. The second presided over 
the Convention. One only, the fifth, is living, (1880.) 
Three of them were ministers of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, one of whom, Pev. Luther Lee, made 

* Thua far Wilson's History is quoted. 



Correlated Antislayery Actiox. 203 

the coneliisiYe argument that decided the action of the 
Convention. The nominations were made. James 
Gillespie Birney, of Kentucky, and Thomas Earle, 
of Pennsylvania, were the candidates. The first was 
a Whig in politics, and while residing in Iluntsville, 
Alabama, was Solicitor-General of the State and an 
elector on the Whig ticket in 1832. Then he was a 
slave-holder, and an elder in the Presbyterian Church. 
But he had returned to Kentucky in 1833, freed all 
his slaves, and become identified with the Abolition- 
ists in 1834. For this the Supreme Court of Alabama 
expunged his name from the roll of its attorneys ; the 
University of Alabama, of which he was a trustee, 
and several literary societies of that State, expelled 
him from their fellowship. In 1839 his father de- 
ceased, leaving him and an only sister a large prop- 
erty in land, money, and twenty slaves. The last- 
named were, by his request, set off to him. These 
he emancipated and provided with a comfortable 
settlement in a free State. (May's " Pecollections of 
the Conflict.") 

Mr. Earle, with whom the writer was personally 
intimate for years, was a member of Friends' meet- 
ing, an able lawyer, and had always acted with the 
Democratic party. But in the State convention for 
constitutional reform, of which he was the recognized 
author and originator, he stood almost alone in oppos- 
ing "white suffrage" as the basis of representation. 
He thereby sacrificed all hopes of political prefer- 
ment, but maintained firmly and constantly the doc- 
trine of human rights, without distinction of color or 
race. Such were the men selected by the Liberty 
party when Abolitionists first entered the arena of 
politics. 



20-i AnTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AND TeIEMPII. 

Notwithstanding all these pecnliar recommenda- 
tions to the Christian citizens of the Union, and to 
the suffrage of antislavery men especially, and al- 
though in natural and acquired abilities both superior 
to the candidates of the other parties, they were not 
supported b}^ thousands of voters whose cause they 
represented. Of two million and a half of votes cast 
at that election, Birney and Earle received less than 
seven thousand. The privilege of being one of that 
" seven thousand ^' who repudiated the Baal worship 
of America is among the pleasant memories of the 
writer. And the members of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church were perhaps more numerous than any 
other class in that band of political pioneers. I^ext 
in number were the Friends ; thus fulfilling in part 
the prophecy of Judge Marshall, fifty years before, 
that the government would lose the support of the 
Quakers and Methodists if it supported slavery. 

The feeble exhibition of Liberty party votes was 
largely ridiculed as a conclusive demonstration of the 
folly of " throwing away your votes " until after the 
next presidential election. Then Mr. Birney and 
Thomas Morris, of Ohio, received sixty-tw^o thousand 
three hundred votes — an increase of nearly tenfold. 
The first balloting was a sowing of seed ; not votes 
thrown away, but producing fruit in measures not to 
be scorned even by ambitious politicians ; for the ma- 
jority of the popular vote in 1844 was less than forty 
thousand for the Democratic candidate, and the 
Liberty party had that much strength and twenty 
thousand votes to spare, thus holding the balance of 
power in New York and Michigan and also in the 
nation. Especially was this true in the State of New 
York, whose electoral vote decided the election of 



Correlated Antisl avert Action. 205 

James K. Polk, by a majority much less than the 
Liberty party vote in that State. 

During this period the Liberty party was able to 
elect a few members of the State Legislatures. These 
sometimes held the balance of power therein, and de- 
termined the choice of United States Senators. John 
P. Hale, of Xew Hamj^shire, in 1846, and Charles 
Sumner, of Massachusetts, in 1851, with Salmon P. 
Chase, of Ohio, in 1848, were thus chosen. The first 
was elected by a coalition with the Whig members, 
and the two latter by a union with the Democratic 
members of their Legislatures, respectively. These 
disturbances of political equilibriums were felt sensi- 
bly at preliminary meetings for nomination, so that 
in a brief period a new class of men were brought 
forward by the old parties, and both were represented 
in part, in Congress and elsewhere, by men who were 
outspoken and true to the cause of freedom. 

In 1818 a large number of influential Democrats of 
New York repudiated the nomination of General 
Cass by their party, and called a convention at Buf- 
falo. At the same time the Liberty j^arty held a con- 
vention there. The two conventions united in adopt- 
ing a platform of antislavery principles, and took the 
name Free Soil party. The candidates chosen were 
Martin Yan Buren and Charles Francis Adams, for 
whom hundreds of thousands of votes were given. 
In New York alone they received over one hundred 
and twenty-one thousand votes, which was seven 
thousand more than General Cass received in that 
State. General Taylor received nearly twice as many 
votes as were given to Cass, in New York, and was 
elected President. The defection in the Democratic 
party was, however, speedily remedied by the recon- 



206 AXTISLAYERY StKUGGLE AND TkIUMPH. 

ciliation of the leaders, but many of the Democratic 
voters never returned to their old association. And 
the Free Soil party candidates in 1852, John P. Hale 
and George W. Julian, received nearly three times as 
many votes as Mr. Birney did in 1844. And in 1856 
John C. Fremont and Julius F. Le Moyne received 
over half a million votes. 

The adoption of the principles of the Free Soil 
party by the Whigs generally, shortly afterward, and 
the organization of the jSTational Republican party 
from the material of both, secured a triumph over a 
divided Democracy in 1860, and made Abraliam 
Lincoln — the great emancipator — President of the 
United States. 

The attention and activity of the antislavery men 
in the Church was thus, for the years immediately 
following 1840, directed more and more to new and 
palpable issues made on the slavery question. 
Whether it was " always a sin," or " not a sin al- 
ways," were cpiestions less absorbing now that each 
white man faced the intensely interesting personal 
questions, '' Am I a slave ? " or " Am I not a slave ? " 
To be, or not to be, a freeman — that was the question 
of the times. AVhether all the Methodist slave-hold- 
ers along the border had left the Methodist Episcopal 
Church voluntarily, or ought to be expelled there- 
from, although grave and important matters for con- 
sideration, w^ere less pressing than the question. Shall 
all the Methodists of the Southern borders, and 
through all the valleys of the West to the Pacific 
Ocean, and along the Atlantic coast to the ^N'ortliera 
Lakes, be compelled to become slave - hunters and 
slave-holders both ? 

The small number of memorials at the General 



Correlated Antislavery Action. 207 

Conferences of 1848 and 1852, therefore, or the infre- 
quencj of Annual Conference resolutions during the 
interval, were not so much evidences of indifference 
to slavery as evidence of a new direction given to anti- 
slavery zeal. An illustration is given by the action 
of the preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Churches 
in Kew York, Brooklyn, and Williamsburgh, at a 
meeting held November 9, 1850. A very able paper 
was prepared by Rev. Davis W. Clark, and adopted 
with enthusiastic unanimity. In this meeting the 
Fugitive Slave bill was declared at variance w4th the 
writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury, 
and that it encouraged perjury by allowing the un- 
questioned assertion of the claimant of a slave ; and, 
also, further declared it to be inconsistent with the 
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and 
the objects of the Federal Union, besides being, worse 
than all, inicjuitous and unrighteous in its provisions, 
and in flagrant violation of the divine fugitive law 
which was proclaimed three thousand three hundred 
years before. That ancient law reads thus : " Thou 
shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped from his master unto thee : he shall dwell 
with thee, even among you, in that place which he 
shall choose in one of thy gates, where it hketh him 
best : thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16. 
Similar sentiments were proclaimed in hundreds of 
Methodist pulpits, including the "Wesleyan" and 
the "Protestant" as well as "Episcopal." But a 
unanimous voice in opposition to these declarations 
was heard from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. And the law was declared by the editor of 
the Eichmond " Christian Advocate " to be " not only 
wise, but eminently conservative, and forming now 



208 Antislayeey Stkuggle and Triumph. 

the strongest, and it may be the only, link in the 
golden chain that binds our national confederacy in 
glorious union." And such, moreover, were the senti- 
ments of some Methodists at the North. And on 
these lines antagonist forces were arrayed in ecclesias- 
tical and political organizations all through the North. 
At the South all were clamorous for obedience to the 
bill of 1850, and their pulpits and press, with much 
assurance, quoted St. Paul's exhortation, "Let every 
soul be subject to the higher powers : the powers 
that be are ordained of God ; " and also Peter's ad- 
monition, '' Submit yourselves to every ordinance of 
man for the Lord's sake." 

And so the line of battle was removed from moral 
to political stand-points, but the warfare was waged 
more fiercely than ever. As the members and min- 
isters of the Methodist Episcopal Church entered 
largely into this field of strife, it became essential to 
the object of this history to give one chapter on the 
correlated political action of the period noted. 



The General Confekence of 1852. 200 



CHAPTEE XX. 

the general CONFEEENCE of 1852. 

THE absorbing question at the Boston General 
Conference was lay delegation. That had a 
special committee and a patient and prolonged inves- 
tigation. Slavery was referred to the Committee on 
Eevisals, with every other question that proposed a 
change of the Discipline. Each had its subcommit- 
tee. The subcommittee on Slavery reported at the 
last meeting of the general committee, only three 
days before the adjournment of the Conference. The 
chairman presented that report on the morning of 
the adjournment, and called the Bishop's attention to 
it several times. But the pressure of unfinished busi- 
ness and the impatience and anxiety to adjourn pre- 
vented any consideration of or action upon it. Inci- 
dentally, slavery was briefly discussed on a proposition 
to form the Kentucky Annual Conference. That 
was the only opportunity afforded for any testimony 
against slavery. 

Heman Bangs said : " What do you want to go 
there for? Have they not Methodist doctrine and 
Methodist discipline and Methodist institutions al- 
ready ? What do you want to go there for ? If it 
is to preach against slavery, I have no objections to 
it ; but if it is to get more of these miserable slave- 
holders into our Church, then I am opposed to it. 
Haven't we enough of them already ? " — Matlack'S 

'''Debates of General Conference ^1852." 
14 



210 Antislayery Stkuggle and Triumph. 

John A. Collins said lie was sorry that Mr. Bangs 
had made such remarks about " miserable slave-hold- 
ers," because he believed that slave-holders were bet- 
ter off, better provided for, better taken care of, in 
the Methodist Ej)iscopal Church than they would be 
anywhere else. And he would say, furthermore, that 
the servants held by Methodists were better cared for, 
and their condition in every sense better, than those 
held by any other class in the community. He could 
have no fellowship with the cant that had been 
uttered there about "these miserable slave-holders." 
No ; he would bring them in and make them mem- 
bers of our body, and their servants too. It would 
make them better masters and better servants. 

James Porter said he had listened to sentiments 
which he was persuaded were antimethodistic, and 
which would astonish this listening multitude by 
placing the Methodist Episcopal Church in a false 
light. To hear a member of this Conference say that 
he would have slave-holders dravv^i into the Church — 
that he would throw the arms of the Church around 
them for the reason that we can do them more good 
than others — to see the effort which the brother had 
made there to obtain fellowship and association with 
slave-holders, would be a source of astonishment to 
the people. Many here are not accustomed to regard 
slave-holders in any other light than as men-stealers, 
or slave-holding as any thing better than the sum of 
all villainies, and, of course, they could not consist- 
ently desire to throw their arms around the slave- 
holder. He repudiated that sentiment, and he be- 
lieved that the General Conference repudiated it. 
They had slave-holders enough now. God forbid 
they should ever add one to the number ! 



The General Confekence of 1852. 211 

Said Mr. Porter : " Those slave-holders who are in 
the Church were understood to be there by toleration 
rather than by right. It was matter of grievance, 
matter of profound regret, that there was one in the 
Church, and that our antislavery friends were under 
the necessity every four years of praying us to put a 
stop to slavery. They were retained in the Church 
only from the hope, presumed to be well grounded, 
that slavery was dying out, and that no slave-holders 
were among us, except a few who had fragments of 
old families left, to which they owed responsibilities 
and duties. Is it true that we are trying to tow others 
into our body ? God forbid ! We have had enough 
of them, and those who left us made us trouble 
enough, and I hope that we will try to add no more 
to our number. These are the sentiments of New 
England ; and I believe I am not mistaken in saying 
these are the sentiments of the great West and of the 
Church at large." [Favorable responses were heard 
from New England men, but some Western men 
dissented at this point.] 

Mr. Porter continued : " The Kentuckians are sus- 
picious of us, it is said. They say we do not belong 
there, and that they must have a Conference of their 
own. What next ? Why, we must admit slave-hold- 
ers, for we shall be unpopular if we do not. What 
next ? We must admit slave-holding ministers in the 
Church, or else we shall not be successful. What 
next? We must go the full length of the Church 
South, or we shall not be popular. Were we pre- 
pared to buy Methodists at such a price ? He thought 
not. Do not let us compromise our principles by 
encroaching upon the territory of slavery, and suc- 
cumbing to its terrible influence." 



212 Antislavery Steuggle and Tkiumph. 

Mr. Porter's remarks produced great excitement in 
and out of the Conference, and fruitless efforts were 
made by leading Conservatives to induce a retraction 
or modification of his radical utterances. 

This opposition did not prevent the organization of 
a Kentucky Conference, which was authorized by a 
vote of YT yeas to 66 nays. Subsequently an Arkan- 
sas Conference also was organized. During the dis- 
cussion on the boundaries of the latter, Kev. J. C. 
Houts, of the Missouri Conference, said : " It has 
been questioned on the floor of this Conference 
whether there v/as not a liability to yield to the pre- 
vailing influence of slavery and form an alliance with 
it." If he did not believe our Church was destined 
to exercise an antislavery influence, he would never 
raise his voice there again, he said. Their position 
was of the conservative antislavery character, which 
distinguished the Methodist Episcopal Church in its 
earlier d^js. " There were," he said, " two classes of 
slave-holders there. One received and held slaves 
from mercenary motives alone, making them work 
solely that they might accumulate money. This class 
was, strictly speaking, in a servile condition. The other 
was a class which received and held their slaves solely 
from the force of circumstances, whose servitude was 
of a domestic nature. The former affiliated with the 
pro-slavery party of the State, while the latter would 
gladly free their slaves if they could. Occasionally, 
members of this latter class were received iuto the 
Churches, the body of the membership, however, 
being those who do not hold slaves." 

Mr. Houts informed the writer at the time that the 
membership of the Missouri Conference was then 
abo'ut eight thousand, of which number one in twenty 



The General Coxference of 1852. 213 

were slave-holders, and that thej admitted all the 
slave-holders that asked to unite with the Church, 
believing that the Discipline was on their side in the 
matter. But he said that "the slave-holders of a 
violent character do not ask to join us ; they go with 
the Church South." 

On the last day of the session of the General Con- 
ference John A. Collins informed the body that 
telegraphic dispatches and a long memorial had come 
to his hands from Baltimore, which related to the 
discussion of a few days previous. This discussion, he 
said, has produced great commotion in some sections 
of our work, and is destined to produce still greater 
excitement. Our people who have servants under- 
stand that they are in the Church, not by sufferance 
but by right; and Mr. Collins wished to have the 
opposite sentiment disavowed by the Conference. 
But the hurry and multiplicity of business ^^I'evented 
even a patient consideration of the matter. 

Three days before, on May 29, Calvin Ivingsley, 
who had led off in presenting the antislavery memo- 
rials, which many were persuaded would not be heard 
from, took the initiative for direct action by the Con- 
ference in offering a resolution providing for a change 
in-the section on slavery, which was laid on the table 
for one day under the rule. It read as follows, an- 
swering the question, " What shall be done for the 
extirpation of the evil of slavery ? " 

1. "We declare tliat we are as much as ever convinced of 
the great evil of slavery; therefore, no slave-holder shall be 
eligible to membership in our Church hereafter, where eman- 
cipation can be effected without injury to the slave. 

2. There shall be a fund raised, called the Extirpation 
Fund, to be constituted by annual collections in all our con- 



214 Antislaveey STurGGLE AXD Triumph. 

gregations where the people are willing to contribute; wliich 
fund shall be under the control of commissioners appointed 
by the General Conference, and shall be appropriated by them 
in assisting our brethren who may be connected with slavery 
to remove their slaves to a free State, if necessary, in order 
that they may enjoy freedom ; and, also, in purchasing, for 
the purpose of freeing them, such slaves as it may be neces- 
sary to purchase to prevent severing family relations where a 
portion of the family may be set free by being removed to a free 
State, or otherwise; and also in rendering such other pecun- 
iary assistance to our brethren, who are desirous of emanci- 
pating their slaves, as such commissioners, under the direction 
of the General Conference, may think necessary. 

3. If there be cases where the emancipation of the slaves 
cannot be effected without manifest injury to the slave him- 
self, our preachers shall prudently enforce upon all our 
members in such circumstances the necessity of teaching their 
slaves to read the word of God, and of allowing them time to 
attend upon the public worship of God on our regular days 
of divine service. 

Professor Kingsley made an earnest effort on the 
last day of tlie Conference to bring up tlie question 
involved in liis resolution for at least a brief consider- 
ation, but failed, althougli in possession of the floor, 
through the disorderly opposition of many loud re- 
monstrants. He took his seat, evidently aggrieved, 
saying, with his peculiar expression of calmness and 
firnmess combined, " Yery well ; you shall hear from 
this matter again elsewhere." This personal purpose 
was also a general prophecy of what was amply ful- 
filled in the early future. 

Tlie fact that the few antislavery memorials from 
Annual Conferences, district associations, and circuits 
were never heard from after being referred to the 
Committee on Revisals, very plainly indicated the 
small measure of antislavery interest in the com- 



The GenefvAl Conference of 1852. 215 

mittee ; but it was not an index of the mind of tlie 
Conference, nor of the Chnrch generally. The state- 
ments of Mr. Collins and Mr. Houts, when published, 
deepened the conviction, newly awakened, that there 
was an imperative demand for such change in the 
General Rnle and the section on slavery as should 
prevent the admission of slave-holders into the 
Church, and provide for the freedom of Methodist 
slaves and many others who were held in slavery by 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And 
the adjournment of the eleventh General Conference 
was the close of a period of denominational inaction 
which had continued for eight years, but it marked 
the opening of a new era in the antislavery move- 
ment in the Church which continued with ever-grow- 
ing power up to the doomsday of slavery. 

The facts connected with the report on the subject of 
slavery at the Boston General Conference are given in 
the "Northern Christian Advocate" of July, 1852, 
(Letter of William Eeddy.) "The petitions and 
memorials on the subject of slavery were referred to 
a subcommittee on slavery. 'No report was made by 
that subcommittee until the Friday or Saturday 
night before the adjournment of Conference, which 
occurred on Tuesday. At that last meeting of the 
Committee on Revisals the report of the subcom- 
mittee on slavery was submitted. Exceptions were 
taken to it in some of its aspects, and the subcom- 
mittee were permitted to take back their report, to 
conform it to some of the suggestions made. It was 
not again submitted to the large committee, but was 
to be presented to the Conference with the modifica- 
tions promised. On Tuesday morning, the day of 
final adjournment, I asked our chairman, Dr. George 



216 Antislavery Steuggle axd Teiumpii. 

Peck, if the slavery report was not to be presented. 
He answered, Yes ; lie should not suffer any business 
to take the place of the order of the day — presenting 
of reports from standing committees. But the report 
was not presented. The chairman laid that report on 
the Bishop's table, and called his attention to it three 
or four times. The Conference had requested the 
Bishop to prepare a list of the most important items 
of business, and he kept to the list he had previously 
prepared. Thus the matter passed off. So the fer- 
mentation must go on for the next four years. The 
Church must endure the reproach that will be laid 
upon her." 



Is ALL Slave-holding Sinful ? 217 



CHAPTEE XXL 

IS ALL SLAVE-HOLDING SINFUL? 

THE qnadrennium following the Boston General 
Conference was distinguished by an nnnsually 
vigorous and extensive discussion of the character of 
slavery, or of the moral standing of the slave-holders. 
Dr. Bond, editor of the "• Christian Advocate " at 
ISTew York, while he antagonized the violent pro- 
slavery sentiments of the South, yet maintained the 
right of slave-holders to a place in the Church for the 
present, and therefore opposed all efforts to exclude 
or expel them. Dr. Elliott, of the " Western Chris- 
tian Advocate " at Cincinnati, took the same position, 
and so also did Dr. Homer J. Clarke, editor of the 
" Pittsburgh Christian Advocate." These two j^apers 
were open, however, to a full discussion of the ques- 
tions involved. 

(3n the other hand, " Zion's Herald," Rev. D. Wise, 
editor ; the '^ Northern Advocate," Pev. W. Hosmer, 
editor, and the " I^orth-western Advocate," Pev. J. Y. 
Watson, editor, were agreed in condemning the 
system of slavery, the traffic in slaves, and all slave- 
holding as well. Allowing as innocent the legal rela- 
tion of slave-holder to any who had slaves bequeathed 
to them, or who might buy slaves to free them, these 
editors favored such a change in the Discipline as 
would prohibit all slave-holding for mercenary pur- 
poses. The conflicting views thus represented were 
the occasion of a controversy that called forth the 



218 ' Antislatery Stkuggle and Tkiumph. 

utmost strength of able correspondents and editors 
as well. 

Within a month after the adjournment of the Gen- 
eral Conference Dr. Calvin Kingsley published in the 
" Christian Advocate and Journal " the changes he 
had proposed in the chapter on slavery, but had failed 
to get fully before that body, v^ith an elaborate argu- 
ment accompanying them. These changes tolerated 
slave-holding wliere " emancipation would be a mani- 
fest injury to the slave," and provided an extirpation 
fund for j)urchasing slaves to free them. He, there- 
fore, did not awaken any opposition from the conserv- 
atives in the Cliurch, These views were partially in- 
dorsed, moreover, by Dr. Bond and Dr. H. J. Clarke, 
editor of the "Pittsburgh Advocate," who both ob- 
jected to making '' injury to the slave " the sole con- 
sideration. They would associate "the interests of 
the master," or qualify by the words "manifest in- 
justice to the master." 

Dr. Bond's view of the question, " Ought all slave- 
holders to be excluded from the Church 'r' are given 
in brief, editorially, December 15, 1853. These senti- 
ments controlled his action as the conductor of the 
leading official organ of the Church, and were un- 
changed during his connection with that |)aper. He 
says : " It is admitted that many of our members who 
hold slaves cannot make them free, because the laws 
under which they live do not allow emancipation and 
residence in the State. To discharge from service, or 
to renounce ownership, is, therefore, only to turn the 
slave over to the sheriff to be sold at public auction, 
with the certainty that the purchaser will be a merci- 
less slave-trader ; or, to remove them to a free State, 
with or without their consent, which may involve the 



Is ALL Slave-holding Sinful? 219 

separation of husband and wife, parents and cliildren. 
In vain we plead that both the one and the other 
wonld be a violation of the law of God — the golden 
rnle itself. The only answer is, ' Slavery is a sin 
under all circumstances, and the Church cannot toler- 
ate sin.' But we deny the premises. Sin is a trans- 
gression of the law, and therefore a fulfillment of the 
law cannot be sin. If, then, the premises are false, 
the conclusion from them is necessary erroneous. 
Indeed, if we admit the premises, we accuse the 
a23ostles of our Lord of conniving at and tolerating 
sin ; for nothing can be clearer from Scripture than 
that the emancipation of slaves was not made a condi- 
tion of membership in the primitive Church, simply 
because it was impracticable under the laws of the 
Roman Empire. . . . Most of the slave States have 
copied the slavery code of heathen Home, and pro- 
hibit emancipation, and hence our members who own 
slaves are placed under similar circumstances with 
those who professed Christ under the ministry of the 
apostles ; and the practice of the first heralds of salva- 
tion shows that slave-holding is not sin under all cir- 
cumstances, and therefore circumstances must now, as 
then, govern the action of the Church in regard to it." 
The leading position in favor of excluding all 
slave-holders was occupied by the " ]^^orthern Chris- 
tian Advocate." Mr. Hosmer, the editor, maintained 
with great energy the sentiment that Christianity is 
so utterly irreconcilable v/ith slavery that neither the 
master nor the slave could be Christians. He said, 
August 4, 1852: "Ko Christian can, by any possibil- 
ity, either be a slave or a slave-holder, in any proper 
sense of these words ; . . . because no man can serve 
two masters — that is, two supreme masters. If the 



220 Antislayeey Struggle and Triumph. 

sla.ve must obey man, whatever lie may command, 
lie cannot obey God ; . . . because no Cliristian can 
exercise nnlimited control over another human being ; 
. . . because slavery is an unholy invasion of another's 
rights ; . . . because a Christian must love the colored 
man as himself. . . . But we go one step further, and 
riliirm that a man cannot be a man, in any proper 
sense of the word, and be a slave. The same is true 
of the slave-holder. To be a slave is to sink below 
tlie order of humanity into that of brutes. The slave- 
holder descends not only below religion, but below all 
the more honorable principles of humanity." 

All who favored the exclusion of slave-holders from 
the Church, Vvdiether editors or correspondents of oth- 
er Methodist official papers, were designated "Ilosmer- 
ites " by the New York " Christian Advocate." " The 
Ilosmerite movement" was noticed and censured and 
deprecated as every way inimical to the interests of 
the Church and to the cause of religion by Dr. Bond, 
its editor. The controversy between the two editors 
occupied many columns and became severely per- 
sonal. The doctor's personal published criticisms of 
the correspondents in Mr. Hosmer's paper provoked 
elaborate rejoinders in the " Northern Advocate," in 
which tlie critic received as many sharp words as he 
gave. Besides this the corresj)ondents of Mr. Hos- 
mer's paper furnished an able and exhaustive discus- 
sion of the whole subject of slavery and of the relation 
and duty of the Church on that question. 

"Zion's Herald," of Boston, prior to 1852, had 
been edited by Rev. Abel Stevens, whose entrance 
upon that work in 1840 had been inaugurated under 
peculiar circumstances of embarrassment from the 
timidity of the Wesleyan Association on the slavery 



Is ALL Sl AYE-HOLDING SiNFUL ? 221 

question. A letter to Mr. Stevens, piibllsliecl in 1856 
by liim, from one of the directors, Dr. Snow, states : 
"It was distinctly agreed between yon and tlie direct- 
ors of the Association, that the discussion of the 
slavery question should be limited to correspondents, 
and as much as possible curtailed. . . . Editorially the 
paper was to occupy a neutral position so far as re- 
lated to colonization and abolition. ... It was true 
the editor was not denied the privilege of expressing 
a strong antislavery sentiment; but he was to take no 
sides with the parties that then existed, except to dis- 
countenance ultraism, schism, and secession." But, 
before Mr. Stevens v^^as taken from that position by 
the General Conference of 1852, the "Herald" had 
been long recognized *s among the prominent anti- 
slavery papers of the country. 

The Kev. D. Wise succeeded Mr. Stevens, and, be- 
ing a radical Abolitionist, made the "Herald" more 
aggressive in its antislavery character, and advocated 
the exclusion of all slave-holders from the Church. 
Toward the editor of the "Herald," therefore, also, 
the attention of Dr. Bond was directed, and he was 
classed with Mr. Hosmer, whose "most ultra opin- 
ions " he is declared to have indorsed, the doctor 
adding, "We had no doubt of the 'Herald's' position. 
It has been explicitly given; and all that remained 
was to consider that paper as enlisted in the crusade 
against the peace and integrity of the Church." 

The " ^NTorth- western Christian Advocate" put 
forth, as an "olive-branch to the Church," its position 
on slavery thus : " Let no more holders of slaves be 
admitted into the Church. While we contend for 
this inhibition in the Discipline we are not to be un- 
derstood as contending for its ex post facto action. 



222 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

We speak of those who sustain the relation of slave- 
holders in the Church. We alkide not to those who 
are slave-hoklers co7i amore, or for the love of the 
thing — for what it is in itself. The latter should at 
once be expelled the Church, while forbearance with 
the former is to be determined by circumstances. . . . 
The j)resent position of Methodism in slave territory 
is just such as must forever deprive her of that social 
respect and popular confidence which it is contended 
are necessary to her success. At present, as respects 
slavery, she is a 23erfect tertiurn quid — neither hot 
nor cold — neither fish nor fowl. Claiming to be op- 
posed to slavery, she invites and woos it to the pro- 
tection of her altars. Denouncing slavery extirpa- 
tion ists, she points to her Discipline, which avows 
slavery extirpation to be one of the ends sought by 
Methodism. Denouncing her younger sister — the 
Church South — she wipes her lips and turns round 
and practices just as the Church South does." — Edi- 
torial, Jidy 5, 1855. 

Dr. Elliot freely criticised and condemned the 
utterances and the course of the "North-western," 
and vindicated opposite vie*vs with greater energy 
than logical consistency, having committed himself 
by the most radical and unqualified denunciations of 
slavery in two volumes published in 1850, which 
were used with great force in a reply by Professor 
W. L. Harris in the columns of the "Western," as 
also by his editorial antagonists, and others. But his 
consistent maintenance of the following proj)Osition 
was unchallenged: "We pro^^ose to defend the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church to the last, believing firmly 
that she has been always right on slavery, both theo- 
retically and practically, as a whole, and we believe 



Is ALL Slave-holding Sinful? 223 

she is now riglit in all material points." What the 
position of the Church was in his opinion is thus set 
forth : '' The principle that the apostles admitted 
legal slave-holders into the Church who repented of 
their sins and forsook them — w^ithout countenancing 
slavery — but rather to its subversion, is a leading 
doctrine of the Methodist Episcopal Church, taught 
hj St. Paul, and on which our Discipline is based 
since the origin of the Church in 178^." — Editorial^ 
January 23, 1856. 

Dr. H. J. Clarke, of the ''Pittsburgh Christian 
Advocate," favored none of the changes proposed. 
He said : "The actual relation of the Church to the 
system of slavery is that authorized by the teachings 
of the Gospel and the example of the primitive 
Church. She condemns it, she opposes it, she toler- 
ates its existence within her pale only in those cases 
in which an entire exclusion of it would inflict ad- 
ditional injury upon its subjects." — Editorial^ Se-p- 
teiiiber 18, 1855. 

Dr. John P. Durbin wrote on " Slavery and the 
Church," affirming : " 1. When the Apostolic Churches 
arose they found slavery existing in the State. So, 
also, when the Methodist Episcopal Church sprang up 
in the midst of the people she found slavery existing 
in the State. 2. In the Ajjostolic Churches masters 
and slaves were converted and came into her bosom. 
In like manner masters and slaves were converted 
and came into the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
3. JN^either the Apostolic Churches nor the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church made the mere relation of mas- 
ter and slave a bar to Church membership. 4. Both 
claimed and exercised the right to enforce upon 
masters and slaves, as such, their duties respectively, 



224 Antislavekt Stkuggle and Triumph. 

considered as between themselves and between them 
and the Cliurcli. 5. In this Discipline it was clearly 
manifested that they disapproved of slavery as a con- 
dition of society and of the individual, and sought its 
extinction," — ^^CTiristian Advocate^^ July 26, 1855. 

Dr. Dnrbin further indicated five particulars which 
should enter into the Discipline of the Church in 
regard to slavery within her bosom : 1. Recognize 
marriage between slaves as existing by the laws of 
God. 2. Eecognize the relation of slave |)arents and 
children, and j^revent their separation. 3. Require 
masters to provide religious instruction for their 
slaves. 4. Require masters to make reasonable pro- 
vision for the physical wants of their slaves. 5. For- 
bid buying and selling slaves, except when the slave 
can be benefited." And he added : "If the Methodist 
Episcopal Church shall judge that the conditions of 
sla.very in her communion call for further action, we 
respectfully commend what is written above for her 
candid consideration." 

Subsequently, in the "Western Christian Advo- 
cate," (December 19, 1855,) Dr. Durbin vindicated 
the propositions first named very elaborately, by nu- 
merous quotations from the E^ew Testament, touching 
masters and servants, with the expositions of the most 
learned commentators and scholars, in su^^port of the 
view "that the apostles admitted slave-holders into 
the Church." Replies were made at length denying 
this aflirmation by the editors of "Zion's Herald," 
the "I^orthern Advocate," and the "North-western 
Christian Advocate." Their ablest correspondents, 
also, made these propositions and arguments the text 
for an extended discussion on the negative side of 
tliis question. 



Is ALL Slaye-holdixg Sinful ? 225 

The doctor's views were supported by the editors 
of the Christian Advocates at 'New York, Pittsburgh, 
and Cincinnati. Their columns were open also for 
opposite views, wliicli were ably maintained. The 
controversy was prolonged and covered a wide field. 
The best scholars and writers w^ere engaged in this 
discussion on each side. What the apostolic Churches 
allow^ed or disallowed had a direct bearing upon the 
issue, for or against a new rule or no rule on slavery. 
And the Annual Conferences were largely occupied 
near the close of tlie quadrennium with reports on 
slavery, and with the practical question, Who shall 
be our representatives in the General Conference of 
1856? 

The conflicting views entertained on the subject of 
slave-holding in the Methodist Episcopal Church, as 
represented by the action of the Annual Conferences, 
were supported by four parties : First, Those who 
were satisfied with the Discipline unchanged ; Sec- 
ond, Those who were in favor of only a slight change ; 
Third, Those who desired an important change of the 
chapter on slavery ; Fourth, Those who were for a 
new rule, excluding slave-holders from the Church. 
The two last were most numerous. 

Having failed to prevent the advance of antislavery 
sentiments in the Church, and finding that the ensu- 
ing General Conference would be made up largely of 
men in favor of change, the conservative element 
made a strong 23oint of the peril to the unity of the 
Church on the " border " to prevent any change ; and 
the Church, for the first time in its history, read 
words of deliberate counsel in favor of nullifying 
Church law in the columns of its leading newspaper : 
'' We did intimate that if the next, or any subsequent 
15 



226 Antislayeet Struggle and Triumph. 

General Conference, should enact a rule of discipline 
excluding all slave-holders from the Church, whatever 
be their character or circumstances, it would become 
the duty of the border Conferences to disregard the 
rule." — " Christian Advocate^"^ Dr. Bond, editor. 
"They must disobey the authority of the General 
Conference, and refuse to execute the rule." 



The General Conference of 1856. 227 



CHAPTEE XXIL 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1856. 

THE four years preceding tlie session of this body, 
which was held in Indianapolis, had been occu- 
pied, as already noted, with a tJiorough discussion, 
through the official press and in the Annual Confer- 
ences, of the enormity of the evil of American slavery, 
the responsibility of the Church, and the duty of 
immediate action condemnatory of all slave-holding 
by its membership. Twenty-nine Annual Confer- 
ences, of thirty-eight, memorialized the General Con- 
ference of 1856 in favor of antislavery action ; and 
the very large majority of antislavery delegates in 
that body, and the numerous memorials from all parts 
of the Church which they brought with them, ex- 
pressed unequivocally the voice of the Church against 
slavery. The Secretary, Professor AY. L. Harris, who 
was chosen on the first ballot, was the representative 
of the New-Pule party. 

The Address of the Bishops stated that " in com- 
pliance with the request of the Troy, Erie, I^orth 
Ohio, and Wisconsin Conferences, different resolu- 
tions asking a change in the General Kule on Slavery 
were laid before ail the Annual Conferences for their 
concurrence. We believe no one of these resolutions 
received the constitutional majority of the members 
of the Annual Conferences. In view of this fact, the 
question may arise whether this body has authority 
to change the Discipline upon this subject so as to 



228 Antislayeet Struggle and Teiumph. 

affect membersliip in the Churcli. We are aware 
that it is difficult to separate the consideration of the 
desirableness of any measure from its constitutional- 
ity, and especially where deep feeling on the subject 
may exist. Yet we think it to be our duty to express 
our strong doubts whether, in view of the restricted 
powers of a delegated General Conference, any meas- 
ure equivalent to a change in the General Rules can 
be constitutionally adopted without the concurrence 
of the Annual Conferences. As to the propriety of 
any modifications, not of such a character as to con- 
flict with the constitutional economy of the Church, 
wdiile opinions and views may be various, we can fully 
confide in the wisdom of this General Conference as 
the supreme council of the Church. 

" In our administration in the territory where slav- 
ery exists we have been careful not to transcend in 
any instance or in any respect what we understood to 
be the will and direction of the General Conference. 
That body having retained its jurisdiction over Con- 
ferences 23reviously existing in such territory, and 
having directed the organization of additional Con- 
ferences, it became our duty to arrange the districts, 
circuits, and stations, and to superintend them as an 
integral 23art of the Church. As the result, we have 
six Annual Conferences which are wholly or in part 
in slave territory. These Conferences have a white 
Church membership, including j^robationers, of more 
than 143,000 ; wdth the attendants upon our ministry 
making a probable population of between 500,000 and 
600,000, They have a colored membership, including 
probationers, of more than 28,000, with the attend- 
ants upon our nunistry making a probable population 
of upward of 100,000. A portion of this popula- 



The General Confeeence of 1856. 229 

tion are slaves ; the others are mostly poor. They 
are generally strongly attached to the Church of their 
choice, and look to it confidingly for ministerial serv- 
ices, religious sympathy, and all the offices of Chris- 
tian kindness. The white membership in these 
Conferences, in respect to intelligence, piety, and 
attachment to Methodist discipline and economy, will 
compare favorably with other portions of the Church. 
In our judgment the existence of these Conferences 
and Churches does not tend to extend or perpetuate 
slavery." 

A committee on slavery had been appointed on the 
first day of the session, on the motion, first, of James 
Porter, of Xew England, who accepted a substitute 
2)roviding for several other committees, each consist- 
ing of thirty-eight members. The Bishops' state- 
ments, above quoted, were referred to the Committee 
on Slavery, with all memorials, resolutions, and Con- 
ference action thereon. And this committee occupied 
several weeks in discussion before agreeing upon a 
report, which marked attention w^as a confession of 
the strange indifference of the two preceding General 
Conferences. And their report recommended for 
adoption the following resolutions : 

1. That we recommeud the Annual Conferences so to amend 
our General Rule on Slavery as to read : " The buying, selling, 
or holding a human being as property." 

3. That the following be, and hereby is, substituted in the 
place of the present Seventh Chapter of our Book of Disci- 
pline, to wit : 

What shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of slav- 
ery ? 

Ansioer 1. We declare we are as much as ever convinced of 
the great evil of slavery. We believe that all men by nature 
have an equal right to freedom, and that no man has a moral 



230 AXTISLAVEEY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

right to hold a fellow-being as property. Therefore, no slave- 
holder shall be eligible to membership in our Church here- 
after where emancipation can be eflected without injury to 
the slave. But, inasmuch as persons may be brought into the 
legal relations of slave-holders, voluntarily or involuntarily, 
by purchasing slaves in order to free them; therefore, the 
merely legal relation shall not be considered, of itself, sufii- 
cient to exclude a person who may thus sustain it from the 
fellowship of the Church. 

Answer 2. Whenever a member of our Church by any means 
becomes the owner of a slave, it shall be the duty of the 
preacher in charge to call together a committee, of at least 
three members, who shall investigate the case, and determine 
the time in which such slave shall be free; and on his refusal 
or neglect to abide by the decision of said committee, he 
shall be dealt w^th as in case of immorality. 

Answer 8. It shall be the duty of all our members and pro- 
bationers wdio may sustain the legal relation of slave-holder, 
to teach tlieir servants to read the word of God ; to allow 
them to attend the public worship of God on our regular days 
of divine service; to protect them in the observance of the 
duties of the conjugal and parental relations; to give them 
such compensation for their services as may, under the cir- 
cumstances, be just and equal; to make such provisions as 
may be legally practicable to prevent them and their posterity 
from passing into perpetual slaver}^, and to treat them in all 
respects as requited by the law of love. 

Answer 4. It shall be the duty of our preachers prudently 
to enforce the above rules. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

M. Raymond, Chairman. 

A minority report was presented by John A. Col- 
lins, as chairman, which embodied an argument 
against the majority report, and which concluded 
briefly : " Resolved^ That we non-concur in the action 
of the majority." The majority and minority reports 
were supported, respectively, by seventeen and six- 
teen members of the committee. 



The General Conference of 1856. 231 

Two days after the first report was presented the 
discussion was commenced, (May 23,) and continued 
several days, ending May 29. It was a memorable 
debate. The advocates of the majority report were 
some of the ablest ministers of the Church, who met 
their equals, of the minority, in the first great anti- 
slavery contest on the General Conference floor. 
The relation of that debate to the ultimate extirpa- 
tion of slavery from the Cliurch made it historic. 
The authorized report of the speeches constitutes the 
basis of the record here made. Beino' in attendance 
as a reporter the writer can vouch for their faith- 
fulness, and quotes therefrom largely, because thus 
authenticated. 

Mr. Raymond, of Xew England Conference, said ; 

When I consider the character of the body here assembled, 
ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ — men who are renewed by 
the Holy Ghost, called to preach the everlasting Gospel to 
perishing millions — by consecration devoted to that work, 
with an eye single to the glory of God, and drawing all the 
motives for their action from the retributions of eternity; 
and when I consider the nature of the business which now en- 
gages us, that of legislating for the Church of God, which is 
organized in all its arrangements to this intent that now 
"unto principalities and powers," etc., might be known to 
the Church the manifold wisdom of God ; when, also, I con- 
sider the results of our discussions — results connected with 
the temporal and eternal happiness of the flocks committed 
to our care — results to our children and children's children 
through all time to come — results that no finite mind can 
anticipate, I cannot allow myself for a moment to believe that 
any other than the one question will be jDerniitted to engage 
the attention of any one of us in the discussion of any matter 
that shall come before us. 

In the discussion of this question the character of the men 
comprising this body, the nature of the work in which we 



232 Antislaveey Steuggle and Teitjmph. 

are engaged, and the inconceivable results of our action, 
force upon me tlie conviction that but one question will be 
considered, but one principle will influence us. That one 
question decided, all others are decided, and that one ques- 
tion is, Are the measures proposed in this report right? 

I cannot believe for a moment that any one of these men will 
allow himself to give attention to any other than this one 
question, Is the measure right ? Is it just and equal ? Is it 
well - pleasing in the sight of God ? This question never 
pressed on my own consciousness of obligation as it does on 
this l)lessed, bright morning ! Never has ray position, as a 
being responsil^le at the bar of God and a candidate for eter- 
nity, made a deeper impression upon me of the importance of 
having a single eye to the truth and glory of God ! 

The question is, Are the doctrines of this report true? Its 
doctrines are two. First, that the reduction of a human 
being to the condition of property is wrong; and, secondly, 
that individuals may be connected with the system innocently, 
and even virtuously; that men may purchase and hold slaves 
for benevolent purposes, and may claim in doing so the ful- 
fillment of that promise that a cup of cold water given in the 
name of a disciple shall not lose its reward. 

We recur to the question, Are these doctrines true ? Is 
slavery in this sense wrong? May a man own a slave in this 
sense, and be an innocent man ? 

The only consistent opponents to this report are of two 
classes — tiiose who hold slavery to be right, to be a divine 
institution, founded on the philosophy of society, sanctioned 
by the Bible, a thing for which we should be thankful to 
God. Those who hold this view must conscientiously oppose 
our report. On the other hand, the report is consistently op- 
posed only by those who hold that the relation cannot inno- 
cently exist under any circumstances. But, in the language 
of the report, no such doctrine is taught, no such design is 
apparent. No such position has been taken by our Discipline 
in the history of Methodism. If the measures proposed in 
the report indicate such a sentiment, I have been unable to 
understand it, 

The measures proposed are in perfect parallelism to the 
doctrines I have stated, If I supposed they were not, I would 



The General Conference of 1856. 233 

be willing to stay here twelve months and discuss them. I 
never would make the door of the Church narrower than the 
gate to heaven. I do believe Christian men, children of God 
and heirs of glory, may innocently sustain the relation. These 
are the doctrines of the Church, if we understand language. 
In the minority report the oidy points raised are not those of 
the rightfulness or otherwise, but of expediency. 

What a contrast is here presented betw^een the moral sub- 
limity of the subject and the argument ! A question of per- 
sonal liberty, involving the moral and eternal interests of 
millions created in the image of God, purchased by the blood 
of the incarnate Deity, moved upon by tlie Holy Ghost, capa- 
ble of the highest glory ; on such a question men descend 
from considerations of riglitcousness and truth to discuss 
questions of expediency. On what times have we fallen, in 
what an age, Avhen we, the strongest Church in the world, 
followers of Him who was spit upon, scourged, derided, 
whose disciples in other ages wandered about in sheepskins 
and goatskins, wdio subdued kingdoms, w^'ought righteous- 
ness, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of 
fire, of w^hom the world was not worthy; that we, their fol- 
lowers, should descend from the sublimity of this question of 
truth and righteousness to deliberate on the questions of ex- 
pediency! 

It is said the provisions of this chapter are in conflict with 
the General Rule, and that to adopt this chapter or to do any 
thing at all w^ill close up all access to the shives. The ques- 
tions are those of constitutionality and usefulness. 

For the sake of the argument, let it be admitted that the 
chapter proposed is unconstitutional. Then remember it is 
not denied that the doctrines of this report are true and its 
measures right. It is right, but not constitutional. Shall 
we, therefore, reject that which is right because unconstitu- 
tional ? Is this good logic ? Is it not a non sequitur? 

Those who raise the question of the unconstitutionality of 
the new chapter proposed are bound to put their hands to the 
removal of the constitutional difficulty. The doctrines of the 
report being true, admitting that the chapter may not be con- 
stitutionally adopted, wdiat is the inference ? It is that every 
good man should put his hand and his heart to the removal 



284 AXTISLAVEEY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

of the constitutional difficult}-, should let it go to the Annual 
Conferences, and thus remove the constitutional difficulty of 
doing what we believe is right. 

"We admit the unconstitutionality of the chapter only for 
the sake of the argument. We deny that it is so. It does 
not contain a new term of membership. It recognizes slave- 
holding as in the Churcli. In nearly every passage of the 
chapter proposed it is contemplated 4^^hat persons may sustain 
the relation for purposes that are laudable. I beg attention 
to the fact that in the chapter, from Alpha to Omega, every 
provision but one, which I do not wish to leave out, does con- 
template the existence of slavery among members, even 
among probationers, in the Church, It cannot be made out 
by any fair argument, by any reasonable construction of the 
chapter proposed, that non-slaveholding is, in all cases, a bar 
to Church membership. It simply indicates that mercenary 
slave-holding is sinful, and ought to be subjected to Church 
discipline. 

Mr. Coombe, of Philadelphia Conference, said : 

I wish to say to Dr. Raymond that the simple question with 
me is, Is this action proposed by the majority right? My 
conclusion is, it is wrong. My conclusion is drawn from the 
report, and from the report alone. The report proves two 
things. First, that this General Conference has no power to 
make the change proposed ; secondly, the report shows as 
clear as sunlight that if it had the power there is no necessity 
to make the change. So whether it has or has not the power, 
it would be wrong to make that change, seeing there is no 
necessity for it. Now I proceed to prove these two proposi- 
tions. That it has no power: I want to call your attention 
to this report, for from this alone I draw my argument. 

This report was written and adopted by Northern anti- 
slavery men. I say this to distinguish them from Southern 
antislavery men. And those who have written and presented 
this report desire a change in our Discipline. Now, what 
their report teaches they ought to be willing to abide by. 
What does the report admit ? First, that this General Con- 
ference has no power to alter the General Rule. Not only is 



The General Coxferexce of 1856. 235 

this admitted, but this report asks that we recommend the 
Annual Conferences to change this rule. If the General C(m- 
ference had the power it would not ask the Annual Confer- 
ences t) do it. If this General Conference has no power to 
change the rule, it has no power to do the same thing in the 
chapter. 

This report admits that it has no power to change the rule, 
and therefore it has no power to do it in any other part of the 
book. I want to ask the friends of that report if this new 
rule were in the book what explanation would the advocates 
of this report give to that new rule ? Tliis question has not 
been touched. Tiie explanation would be precisely the same 
that is contained in this new chapter, and no other. 

This report declares that the relation may exist innocently; 
that the merely legal relation shall not prevent persons from 
Church membership. Therefore, if this new" rule w^ere in the 
book it would do no more than is proposed to be done in 
this chapter. As Dr. Raymond has well and beautifully 
argued here, they would not propose to exclude the innocent. 
Now, then, I ask you to go back. Suppose this new rule was 
in the book, and we were acting under it, would the chapter 
proposed give any higher expression or greater force to that 
rule ? The exposition of that new rule, which they admit 
they have not the power to put in, would be the same expla- 
nation they give it in this new cliapter. Now, if that new 
rule would authorize no more or higher action, but the same 
that this chapter proposes, and they have not powder to change 
the rule, have they the power to put in the new chapter? 
But they say they have not the power to change the rule so 
as to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 

Again, this report, according to its own showing — and I am 
judging them by their own document — proves conclusively 
and clearly that if the General Conference had the power 
there is no necessity for its exercise, because every claim they 
make is met. 

1. The new chapter is not necessary to change the position 
of the Church. 

That report teaches that the Methodist Episcopal Clmrcli 
lias, iu good faith, in all the periods of its history, proposed to 
itself the question, " What shall be done for the extirpation 



236 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

of slavery ?" and it has never ceased, openh^ and before the 
world, to bear its testimony against the sin, and to exercise its 
disciplinary powers to the end that its members might be kept 
unspotted from criminal connection with the system, and that 
the evil itself be removed from among men. 

The report says the Methodist Episcopal Church has ever 
maintained an unmistakable antislavery position. If this is 
so, where is the necessity of any change in any part of our 
Discipline ? Our brethren of the majority must either annul 
their report or abandon the proposed change. I call your 
attention to the peculiarly strong language used by the chair- 
man of the committee on the floor and iu this house. The 
chairman knows the use of language. The Methodist Epis- 
copal Church ever — ever what? maintained — maintained what? 
an unmistakable antislavery position. Can any thing be 
stronger than that ? and that position was antislavery. 

3. This report proves that there is no necessity of any 
change in the Discipline to change the doctrines of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. That Church has ever proposed to 
itself the question, " What shall be done," etc. 

Here, then, is the testimony of our Northern antislavery 
friends — intelligent men, men of God, men of piety, men of 
honesty — who went into the investigation of this subject to 
come out and tell us that the doctrine of this Church is sound 
and scriptural ; and if this is so, in the name of God, of hu- 
manity, where is the propriety of changing what is sound, 
scriptural ? Is it right to change what is right? 

3. Tliere is no necessity of changing the Discipline on slav- 
ery to change the influence of the Church. What does the 
report say ? "It is affirmed and believed that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has done more to diffuse the antislavery 
sentiment, to mitigate the evils of the system, and to abolish 
the institution from civil society than any other organization, 
either political, social, or religious." Why, sir, when I read 
that I had liked to have said. Glory to God! It was such an 
indorsement of our course by our Northern antislavery 
brethren. 

If that is the position ; if we have stood high, head and 
shoulders, above all other organizations iu diffusing antislav- 
ery seutimeuts, and to abolish the institution from civil soci- 



The Genekal Confeeence of 1856. 237 

ety, in the name of humanity why do any thing to jeopardize 
even that tremendous instrumentality ? 

4. The report proves that there is no necessity of changing 
the Discipline to change the practice and action of the 
Church on slavery. " It is also affirmed and believed that 
the administrators of Discipline in our Church, within the 
bound of slave territory, have faithfully done all that, under 
their circumstances, they have conscientiously judged to be in 
their power to aiuicer the ends of the Liscipline in terminating 
that great evil.'''' 

Now, here is testimony to the practice and action of the 
Church ; not in non-slave-holding territory, not in the North, 
not in the East, where the evil does not exist, but in slave 
territory. Now these points are sustained by the testimony 
of our brethren themselves. I ask, tlien, in the name of hu- 
manity, what more can they ask or desire? These brethren 
say that we have not only done icell., but have faithfully done 
all that could be done to carry out the views of the majority 
report, and to ensure the end of the Discipline — the exter- 
mination of this great evil. If they had said " enter thou 
into the joys of thy Lord," it had been happy; but they 
come up and say "Well done," and then, instead of saying 
"enter thou into the joys of thy Lord," they send us back 
to the South, and take away our only means of doing the 
great work assigned us. 

Let us review this argument. First, from the report, we 
learn that the position of the Church is unmistakably anti- 
slavery, her doctrines are plain and sound, her influence 
wholesome and strong, and that her discipline has been faith- 
fully administered in slave-holding territory. Now, sir, if 
that is the opinion of these brethren, I ask again, What more 
do they want? I ask them to stay their hands. If it is not 
necessary, then, from this showing, is it not wrong to attempt 
this change ? It is not a question of expediency, but of right 
and wrong. If the brethren of the majority will let us alone 
we will go on breaking the chains of the oppressed ; but if 
they chain us we can unchain no one else. 

Hiram Mattisoii, of tlie Black Eiver Conference, 
said: 



238 Antislayeey STKroGLE AND Triumph. 

I am in favor of the report of the majority as it is, and can- 
not see the force of the objections nrged ngainst it by the hist 
speaker. If I understand liim it is this: The report admits 
that the Church has all along borne a testimony against slav- 
ery quite as stnmg as this proposed new chapter, and tliat 
this new chapter is wholly unnecessary. This argument will 
apply both ways. If the assumption of the report is false, 
then further expression may be necessary, and Brother 
Coomb's argument falls to the ground; but if, on the other 
hand, the assumption of the report is true, as I firmly believe, 
then the proposed new chapter is perfectly in harmony with 
the testimony of the Church against slavery from first to last, 
and cannot, therefore, be unconstitutional. 

This is my position : that the General Rule on slavery was 
designed to shut all slave-holding out of the Church, and 
that, consequently, the proposed new chapter is not in conflict 
with, and does not go beyond, the CTcneral Rule, but is in per- 
fect harmony with it. 

That the paragraph relating to slavery in the General Rules 
was put there to prohibit the admission of slave-holders into 
the Church is evident from the circumstances of its introduc- 
tion into the General Rules and from the whole history of 
our Church, so far as this slavery is concerned, from first to 
last. 

Which history the speaker quoted, as we have it al- 
ready noted in former chapters. He then said : 

In 1808 provision was made for a delegated General Con- 
ference to be held in 1812; and in defining the power of the 
General Conference it was said, "They shall not revoke or 
change the General Rules of the United Societies." So the 
restriction has stood ever since; and now it is argued that to 
restore the chapter on slavery, so far as to prohibit the future 
admission of slave-holders into the Church, is to change the 
General Rule; and, therefore, we cannot do it without a vote 
of two thirds of the General Conference and three fourths of 
all the Annual Conferences ! 

But has not that chapter been altered by the General Con- 
ference so as to nullify the General Rule, even since the 



The General Conference of 1856. 239 

restrictive rule was adopted ? In 1812 the following altera- 
tion was made : " Whereas the laws of some of the States do 
not admit the emancipation of slaves without a special act 
of the Legislature, the General Conference authorizes each An- 
nual Conference to form their own regulations relative to 
buying and selling slaves." — '' Hlfitory of the Discipline,'^ p. 278. 

Here "the laws of the States" — slave States — are installed 
in place of God's word; and even the "buying and selling 
of slaves" is taken from under the operation of the General 
Rule forbidding them, and handed over to the Conferences in 
slave-holding territory. Was not this virtually changing the 
General Rule? And was this proposed change sent around 
to the Annual Conferences? No, indeed. And the modern 
cry of "unconstitutionality," first uttered here, I am sorry to 
say, by our venerated, beloved Bishops, was not then heard 
of. It was all well enough when the legislation looked to- 
ward the widening of the door of the Church for the ingath- 
ering of slave-holders, but the moment the slightest modifica- 
tion is proposed, looking for the elevation of the antislavery 
standard of our Church to where it stood in the beginning, 
we are to be frightened out of our wits by the cry of "uncon- 
stitutionality." This very chapter lias been altered four times 
since the restrictive rule became fundamental law with us ; by 
one of these changes the terms of membership in the Church 
were changed from non-slaveholding according to the Gen- 
eral Rule, and the chapter itself, to whatever an Annual Confer- 
ence in slave territory might determine. In 1816 the General 
Rule was made to merely prohibit slave-holders from holding 
office in the Church; and in 1820 the rule which allowed An- 
nual Conferences to legislate upon the subject was stricken 
out. It remained just long enough, and, I think, purposely, 
to fill the Church with slave-holders. In 1824 the last four 
paragraphs of the chapter were added. '' Hidory of the 
Discipline,'''' p. 27. 

Thus we have had this chapter modified four times, under 
the same general rule and restrictive rule that now exist, 
but now we are warned not to touch it, lest we violate the 
"Constitution!" 

There was no word of remonstrance from the bench of 
Bishops against the change as unconstitutional. The fa- 



240 A:n^tislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

thers, sir, have been backsliding on this question from the 
first prohibition. 

I conclude by re-affirming what I think I have proved — 
that the General Rules are both antislavery and prohibitory; 
that therefore all tampering with this chapter for the last 
forty years, to lower its antislavery tone, has been in viola- 
tion of the General Rule, and unconstitutional ; while the 
section proposed in the report is in perfect harmony with 
the General Rule, and perfectly constitutional. Let us adopt 
it, then, as it is, and forever prohibit what is admitted on all 
hands to be sinful slave-holding from the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. 

George R. Crooks, Philadelpliia Conference, snb- 
mittecl, that in this discussion we have on one side 
facts, and on the other side theories ; on the one side 
abstractions, on the other constitutional realities ; on 
the one side the vagaries of ultraism, on the other 
side the matured opinions and exj^erience of the 
fathers. He then reviewed Mr. Mattison's quotations 
in the light of other portions of their sayings and 
doino^s. He said that while it was true that the 
fathers did promulgate theories akin to those now en- 
tertained, it was equally true that, after testing their 
theories by the stern realities of fact, they found that 
the widely -opening doors that had met them every- 
where in the South were closed one after another. 
And they had wisely receded from their impracti- 
cable schemes. They chose to give prominence to 
the salvation of the souls of men, and make the amel- 
ioration of their social condition a subordinate matter. 
To all the constructions by which the Discipline was 
made to prohibit all slave-holding, Mr. Crooks said : 
"The fathers understood the English language, and if 
they meant that they would have said that. But they 
had not said that, and therefore they did not mean that." 



The General Confp:rence of 1856. 241 

A glowing eulogy was passed upon Asbury and the 
fathers. The intimation that they had backslidden in 
their testimonies was repudiated with great feeling 
and some indignation. After various comments upon 
quotations from Asbury's " Journal," Mr. Crooks 
closed with one of special interest, the last words of 
which were : " What is the personal liberty of the 
African, which he may abuse, to the salvation of his 
soul ? How may it be compared ? " 

Gordon Battelle, of Virginia, said : 

This body is not invested with the power to legishate upon 
and settle great questions of a purely civil and national im- 
port. For one, I am liere, a plain Methodist preacher, as a 
member of this General Conference, to aid, to the extent of 
my feeble powers, in making' rules and regulations, not for 
the nation, but for the Methodist Episcopal Church. In the 
opening of this debate the real question for determination 
was fairly stated to be : Are the measures proposed in the 
report of the majority of the Committee on Slavery right ? 
There is one source only to which we can look for authori- 
tative decisions on all questions relating to the pr.oper tests 
of membership ; and that is the New Testament. Without 
arguing the point Mr. Batelle assumed, further, that slaves and 
slave-holders were both admitted to the apostolic Churches. 
There is not, said he, in the New Testament, one verse, line, 
or word even, that imposes any such obligation or test like 
that which this new chapter seeks to establish. The New 
Testament establishes no restriction at all with regard to the 
admission of slave-holders into the Christian Church. And 
no such restriction had ever l)een established by Wesley nor 
the English Wesleyans; and it is entirely opposed to the fun- 
d;i mental law of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

I am opposed to the measures of this report as practically 
inaugurating a new and restricted commission for the Church, 
unauthorized by the only Head of the Church. They tend 
virtually to seal up that message, so far as our pul^lication 
of it is concerned, in reference to sections and Conferences 
of the Church ; even where, as is the fact in my own Confer- 
16 



24:2 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

ence, the proportion of those in the Church connected -with 
slavery, is, to those who are not, scarcely as one to five hun- 
dred. I object further, that this restricted message, if it ever 
reach the master or slave at all, offers him salvation, not now, 
but some time hence, w'hen certain technical processes are 
pondered and consummated ; it may be a year, or ten years — 
when, in short, it may be forever too late. 

Brethren ask us. Why not take a step in advance ? I an- 
swer, We are now standing on the only solid foundation. The 
right to go one step beyond it implies the right to go any 
length in any direction. Here is firai ground ; " all else is sea 
besides." Our people who are not here to-day have confidence 
in our abiding by the safeguards to a precipitate action, which 
w^e ourselves have long since pledged to them. 

Israel Chamberlayne, of Genesee Conference, said : 
Slavery can never regenerate itself. Its native tendencies 
are all in the opposite direction. The truth of this assump- 
tion appeared in a rapid survey of its general history. But 
of slavery in the Church — for, unhappily, slavery in the Church 
has its liistory also ; not Abrahamic and Jewish slavery, but, 
as is pleaded. Gospel slavery ; not post-apostolic, but co-apos- 
tolic; not patristic, nor mediaeval, nor papal, but Wesleyan 
— Wesleyanly Methodistic — Episcopally Metliodistic slavery ; 
you must have noticed, sir, that our contestants for apostolic 
slavery apologize for it on the ground that, being underlaid, 
with the principles of equity and love, it w^as expected that 
those principles would soon obliterate it by obliterating the 
distinctioQ betw^een the master and the slave; and that, until 
that result was reached, the former, as well as the latter, w^as 
admitted to the Church, that its meliorating associations, by 
making the master a better man, might prepare a better mas- 
ter for the slave. 

Supposing so much of this assumption to be true as regards 
the idea that the principles of the Gospel were expected by 
the apostles to operate the gradual, if not the speedy, extir- 
pation of slavery, I shall only express our common regret 
that, according to these annalists of slavery in the Church, 
the apostles' expectation has never yet been realized — not 
quite. But Methodism is now its antagonist. Methodism, 



The General Conference of 1856. 243 

which is not particularly displeased by being considered the 
purest, most just, most benevolent, and the mightiest of all 
post-apostolic organizations — this is the power by which 
slavery was grappled seventy-six years ago. Moved by the 
utter abhorrence of slave-holding, so freely uttered by their 
founder, the first Methodist preachers went straight to the 
conscience of the oppressor with — "Thus saith the Lord, Let 
my people go." Slavery — I speak of it as then existing in 
our Societies — slavery, having some conscience then, and 
writhing and alarmed by the energetic utterances of these 
men of God, half-relaxed her grasp upon her victims, and 
only pleaded that time might be allowed her to consummate 
her repentant purposes, by preparing the exodus of her sable 
captives. 

In her next phase she appears to have half-repented of her 
partial repentance, and repulsed the message of emanci])ation 
with — "Wliy do ye," fanatical intermeddlers, "let the people 
from their work ?" till at length, waxing bold in her impiety, 
and emulating tlie audacity of her Egyptian prototype, she 
puts down lier queenly foot as a final period to all negotia- 
tion on tlie subject, by virtually saying, "I know not the 
Lord ; neither will I let the people go." Then it was that 
the voice which pealed upon the ear of Freeborn G-arrettson 
— the voice which cried, "Let the oppressed go free!" — the 
voice which pursued him till his last vassal w^as emancipated — 
then it w\as, I saj, that that voice l^egau to die away upon the 
ear of the Methodist slave-holding conscience. True, we have 
been saying our Catechism on the "extirpation" of slavery 
from that day to this; and it must be admitted that some of 
us who were at a safe distance have not only said it accord- 
ing to the book, but have, now and then, edified each other 
and eased ourselves of some pent-up indignation by impro- 
vising some hard epithets which were not in the book. But 
what answer can we give as to what else we have done ? 
Shall we point to the existing separation between us and a 
half million of slave-holding Methodists in the South ? To 
this candor demands we should admit that it came without 
our choice, and that it was submitted to as a great calamity, 
and with many a fraternal pang. 

And it must be further admitted, that, while the Southern 



214 AXTISLAYERY SxErGGLE AND TeIUMPH. 

secession has expunged the chapter on slavery, and declared 
that the General Rule is innocent of any hostility to such 
common slavery practices as do not involve the outlawed 
African slave-trade — and while buying, selling, and holding 
human beings as chattels is perfectly free, as well to every 
grade of her ministry (including Bishops) as to her private 
members — it must be further admitted, I say, that while this 
is the case, there is not wanting, on both sides of the line, a 
confraternal feeling, not only inducing the interchange of 
kindly social offices — an object greatly to be desired — but 
also of mutual recognition in acts of public worship, in sacra- 
ments and ordinances, at the altar and in the pulpit, by our 
laymen and by our ministers. 

That we can claim no merit for the sloughing off the 
Southern slaveryism, other than inflexibly maintaining the 
inexpediency — not the sin, but the mere inexpediency — of 
episcopal complicity with it, is further obvious from the fact, 
not that our Methodism, with John Wesley's ideas of it and 
the ideas of our cis-Atlantic fathers, has been carried into 
slave territory, and established and extended there; but from 
the fact that it is there as much a slave-holding Methodism, 
so far as private membership is concerned, as the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. And it is obvious from the further 
fact, tliat it is not only there as a receptacle for those who 
live on compelled and unrequited labor, in violation of nat- 
ural justice and the word of God, but that it is in course 
of extension, by building churches, organizing circuits and 
districts and conferences and missions ; and that moneys 
collected for the general missionary purposes are appropri- 
ated, in part, for this purpose — the maintenance and exten- 
sion of a status which invites to our communion those who 
hold in cattlehood their own blood, their own brethren! 
These references to slavery, its developments and operations 
in our country and in our Church, w'ill at least suffice to show 
that slavery, because it is intrinsically evil, can never exhibit 
and never has exhibited, any tendency to self-correction — self- 
extirpation. On the contrary, as the above references show, 
the whole history of slavery, whether in Church or State, 
presents it as the antagonist to all that is sacred in natural 
justice and the inalienable rights of man ; to all that is sa- 



The General Confekence of 1856. 245 

cred in the relations of husband and wife, parents and chil- 
dren; to all that is distinctive in ethical Christianity and 
Methodism, from "the most execrable villainy that ever saw 
the sun." And it not only exhibits these points of antag- 
onism to natural justice and human rights and preceptive 
Cliristianity, but in the nature of things, as well as in point 
of fact, it has been, is, and ever must be, actively aggressive 
upon all these interests. So that the question now forced 
upon us, as to what shall be done — not what shall be said^ 
merely, but as to what shall be done — for tlie extirpation of 
slavery, is a question which appeals directly to the instincts 
of self-preservation. For he must be a dull interpreter of 
history and the signs of the times who does not see that if 
freedom does not extirpate slavery, slavery will extirpate 
freedom; that if Methodism does not extirpate it, it will ex- 
tirpate Methodism; and, finally, that if we do not extirpate 
slavery, slavery will extirpate us. 

Sir, we are admonished to ^''let well enough alone.'''' But we 
must decline this advice, because, for the life of us, we cannot 
agree that slave-liolding, especially the everlasting influx of 
it into the Church, is quite well enough. 

And now for a few words more immediately to the re- 
port before us. I am in fiivor of it : 1. Not because it 
contains so little of what we believe ourselves entitled to 
claim, but because it contains any thing ; not because it 
waives so much that is material to our principles and 
aims, but simply because it does involve the principle of pro- 
hibition. 

I am in favor of it : 2. Because this prospective prohibition 
is covered by the aegis of undisputed precedent. The fourth 
restriction is, '-'•that they'''' — the General Conference — '•''shall 
not revoTce or change the General Rules ;'''' that is, they shall not 
strike out or change the sense of either of those rules. Neither 
of these two things is contemplated in this report so far as 
relates to the chapter on slavery." But the General Con- 
ference has ever held, and on various occasions exercised, 
the right of interpreting and constructing these same General 
Rules. They have this right, and exercised it in 1836 and 
1840, by making baptism and a correct faith conditions of 
membership. 



246 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

By way of corollary lie added : 

1. The General Conference ought to have the right of cle- 
chiring the true construction of the General Rules. 

2. That right involves the right of correcting a defective 
or false construction. 

3. It has that right. 

4. It lias exercised that right. 

5. It has exercised it freely and repeatedly. 

6. It has exercised it in cases, one at least, exactly anal- 
ogous to that in which this report proposes its exercise. 

I conclude by remarking: That, for the mere exercise of 
such a right of construction as does not disfranchise our ex- 
isting membership, nor abridge any of their chartered or just 
rights, this General Conference is amenable to no earthly 
tribunal whatever. And that, as to those who, claiming and 
exercising the right of property in their fellow-men, propose 
themselves as members of our Church hereafter, they can- 
not justly complain of the action proposed by this report as 
violative of their rights, for the simple reason that they have 
no such rights. 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 247 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

debate on slavery CONTINUED. 

DUEI]N"G tlie debate able speeches were made in 
favor of antislavery action by C. ^N". Smith, of 
New Hampshire; J. Dodge, of East Genesee; TVill- 
iam Reddy, of Oneida ; and W. C. Hoyt, of ISTew 
York East ; and also speeches against any action by 
J. Drummond, of Western Virginia, and G. "W. 
"Walker, of Cincinnati, which have been omitted only 
because of the space they wonld occupy, and because 
not necessary to a complete exhibit of the main line 
of arguments ^:>r6» and cofi. 

Dr. Edward Thomson, of North Ohio, said : 

I am very bappy that this discussion has commenced, and 
hope it will continue until every brother shall have had an 
opportunity to be heard. I hope it will be conducted in a 
spirit of charity. Any person may become charitable on this 
subject if he will exercise a little patient thought. Take the 
map: on a certain latitude men are pro-slavery, on another 
antislavery, and those between the two are conservative. 
The reason is, man is frail, and the circumstances around him 
influence him. The question before us is twofold. First, 
Ought slave-holding to be tolerated? And, secondly, Is the 
plan in the rej^ort the proper plan? When I say slave-hold- 
ing, I do not mean ante-apostolic, apostolic, or post-apostolic 
slave-holding, but slave-holding in 'fifty-six in these United 
States. When I speak of the theater, I do not speak of the 
theater set up by Gregory Nazianzen, but as it exists in these 
United States, with its associations and tendencies. And 
when I speak of slave-holding, I speak of it as our own and 
nothing else. Let me abridge the argument by making con- 



248 Antislayeey STRroGLE AKD Tkiumph. 

cessions. Concede, for the sake of the argument, tliat the 
negro is an inferior variety of tlie race; that in his native 
home he is a degraded, wretched being ; that in his bondage in 
the United States his is a condition of comfort; that there 
are no three millions and a half of colored persons better 
housed, fed, and clothed ; that they are contented with their 
lot; that their masters had them, not from choice, but by in- 
heritance; that there are difficulties connected with their 
emancipation ; that the North is equally involved with the 
South in the sin and profits of slavery. Let it be conceded, 
also, that God will bring good out of their bondage, etc. 
Take these propositions separately or collectively, they do not 
afford any justification for the holding of men in slavery. 

Is slave-holding to be tolerated in the Church of God? 
Holding men as property is what I mean by slave-holding. 
This is the law: it chattelizes men. The slave maybe sold 
for his master's debts, or mortgaged. Is that right ? Is it to 
be tolerated in the Church of God ? iVsk reason. Is it right 
that one man should hold another man as property ? What 
is a man? A moral, rational, immortal, accountable being — 
capable of moral discernment — acting under a moral law — with 
a moral nature — capable of moral enjoyment. If he is ac- 
countable to God for his conduct, should he be controlled 
as an ox or an ass? You may acquire property by possession 
which was not originally rightfully acquired, but not when, 
the original owner is present; and where the slave is, there 
is the owner. Knock at his breast, and ask him if he 
has no right to his limbs, his eyes, his ears. We see how 
some men reason, and throw the sin upon God, that God au- 
thorizes it. When a man tells me that, I say as Marshall 
said, I have too much respect for Almighty God to defend 
him against such an accusation. Go to the Bible. I would 
not refer to it, but it has been alluded to. The venerable 
Bishop Soule once said to me, ''Abraham had slaves bought 
with his money, and born in his house." I respond, these 
slaves were not American slaves — were not held as property. 
And I think I can convince him. Abraham armed his slaves, 
three hundred strong, and marched them into a hostile terri- 
tory, and then marched them back. In the name of sense 
how could he have found his way back a slave-holder? Sup- 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 219 

pose he had had slaves snch as the Southern slave-holders 
had, could he have done this? 

Now to the Mosaic dispensation. I mention two princi- 
ples: First, the fugitive slave law of the Hebrews; it was, 
that if a fugitive slave came into the country, the common- 
wealth was pledged to prevent him from being recaptured. 
On what principle was this practicable if the right of prop- 
erty was admitted? What would be the effect of that slav- 
ery ? Here was little Palestine surrounded by pagan states, 
and if the commonwealth would not let the fugitives go back, 
these pagan nations would not let the Hebrew slave that 
escaped to them go l)ack. Again, they had an emancipation 
statute. To buy a pagan slave was to put him into a process 
of emancipation; for a jubilee was proclaimed every seven 
yeais for Hebrew slaves, and every fifty for all the inhabit- 
ants. 

The New Testament is not pro-slavery — is not even toler- 
ant of slavery. The law of love and the principle of redemp- 
tion run all through the world of revelation, underlie its 
surface, overtop its mountains, crop out of its hill-sides, etc. 
Not so with those passages which are sometimes quoted on 
the subject of slavery. I could as well prove that Lake Erie 
is medicated because a chest of medicine had sometime fallen 
into it. If the New Testament is pro-slavery the apostles 
were moral homoeopathists ! Do you believe that Onesimus was 
a slave? [Cries of " Yes," " No ! "] If so, how did the apostle 
get him back? A little girl was asked how the Lord made 
heaven and earth? She answered, "He just said it!" Not 
so with apostles ; they had not the same power. If Paul was 
a supreme judge, with marshals at his back and secret service 
money at his command, he might get him back. But to just 
say him back — tell him to go back — would be vain. Bring 
the fugitive here, and let these Bishops and this Conference 
say go back. Should we do so, who would venture to send 
a letter back by him to his master? 

We are to judge by general principles. Minor principles 
are not to bend to general principles. What are they? 
"God hath made of one blood," etc. Suppose you go to 
New Orleans, and see a man on the auction block. You tind 
him to be your brother, from the same womb, the same loins. 



250 Antislayeey Struggle and Triumph. 

the same breasts. Would jou hold him in slavery ? If you 
did, what would your father say? "Thou slialt love," etc. 
" Whatsoever ye would," etc. Does that law measure out your 
obligation, so that you can liold your fellow-man in bond- 
age ? This law has its guards. The ten commandments are 
its guards. If you measure up to adultery, you have made a 
mistake. So of stealing, so of idolatry, and it is in view of 
these general principles that we are to interpret minor prin- 
ciples. 

If there is any thing tolerant of slavery in the Bible, then 
the two revelations are in conflict — that of the New Testa- 
ment and that of nature. Even the South admits slavery to 
be an evil to the body, the soul, the slave, the master, to the 
soil, even. If God in nature and providence has pronounced 
it cursed, has he in his word pronounced it blessed ! Argu- 
ments multiply as we advance. Look at the tendency of the 
New Testament. What has produced emancipation in Eu- 
rope — in the Northern States? Not infidelity, but Christian- 
ity. And what has produced throughout the North the long, 
universal cry for emancipation ? The New Testament. If it 
could be maintained that any thing in the New Testament 
tended to perpetuate slavery, why then the South ought to 
make their slaves read the word of God. 

But there are objections to passing a rule by which all men 
who hold slaves shall be excluded from the Church: 

1. "That it cuts asunder the great commission to go and 
disciple all nations." I do not so uudeistand it. If men are 
willing we should go to the South with the whole Gospel, 
and not an emasculated Gospel, we are ready to go, but not 
otherwise; and we justify ourselves by our Lord's words: 
"If they persecute you in one city, flee into another." I 
honor the fathers, living or dead, and yet I have not been 
taught adulation or adoration of mortal man. The mistake 
made by Bishop Asbury, when he lowered the standard of the 
Discipline to establish the Church in the South, was one of 
the greatest ever made by a mortal man. Would you go to 
Utah and write in your Discipline that no man might have 
more than three wives? [Several voices, "No."] 

If Asbury could see the results of his course, he would 
weep. Let the whole Gospel go there to work as the leaven, 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 251 

and leaven the whole lump. Is the Gospel antislaver}^? If 
so, then, sir, it has never been j^ropeiiy applied in the South- 
ern States, Slavery has existed three hundred years in these 
United Stares, and is stronger to-day than it ever was before. 
Now, I ask at what rate is the Gospel accomplishing its work, 
if after three hundred years slavery is stronger than it ever 
was? This is important. There are now three and a half 
millions slaves, and after a comparatively short period we 
shall have forty millions, or a hundred millions. What is to 
accomplish their deliverance ? Politics ? I have no hope 
here. The sword ? I pray God not — and another thought, 
yve have no example of successful servile war; though the 
blood of blacks and whites should redden the Mississippi, it 
would not result in emancipation of the enslaved. I had 
hoped that, as the slaves increased, their value would diminish. 
But the opening of immense territories to slave labor has cut 
off that hope. My hope is in God — in the Church of God, 
Will the Church in the South ever rise and take her stand in 
favor of emancipation, while there are ministers, bishops, and 
archbishops who are justifying slavery ? Never until the 
Church at the North arises to a correct position is there any 
hope of success. 

I have my doubts whether the new chapter is consistent 
with the General Rule. I will indicate the reasons of these 
doubts, but shall not now elaborate my views on this ques- 
tion : 

First. The antislavery action of the Church was less and 
less stringent, up to the time of the adoption of the General 
Rule. 

Second. The purpose of the rule evidently was to open the 
Southern States to the preaching of the Methodists. 

Third. The interpretation given to the rule on slavery by 
contemporaneous action must fix the meaning of the General 
Rule, as designed to allow of slave-holding by members of 
the Church. 

Fourth. The proposition to change the General Rule shows 
a doubt of the propriety of the provisions of tlie new chapter 
while it remains as it is. I propose to go to the root of the 
difficulty — to change the General Rule. It is wrong to attempt 
to compass in the chapter what you cannot do in the consti- 



252 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

tution. I say, honor bright, I nail wy colors to the mast- 
head, and would rather sink fifty fathoms with my colors in 
the right phice, than to succeed by equivocal methods. 

John A. Collins, of Baltimore, referred to the kind 
words spoken of him by Dr. Thomson, and recipro- 
cated in glowing terms of enlogy personally, but 
regretted the necessity of dissenting Yery positiYely 
from his sentiments on the subject of legislating 
against slavery. A brief of his argument only is 
given : 

I wish it understood in the outset that there are not two 
parties here, as existed in 1844, a genuine Southern party and 
an adverse party. 

I am not here to defend slavery from the Bible or any other 
source. I am not here to make that issue. Not at all, sir. 
The brethren representing the Baltimore Conference are not 
pro-slaver3\ My honored people, which I in part represent 
on this floor, are not pro-slavery. And we have given the 
strongest possible proof of that fact. Why does Baltimore 
stand where she does? Why did she not go off with the 
Church South ? Why maintain her allegiance to the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in these United States ? 

"What is the reason ? But one reason can be given. We 
do not believe in the sentiments of that Church. The section 
of the country with which I am not most familiar was passed 
through by an able man, proclaiming slavery to be a divine in- 
stitution, a divine right, running it out into all the ramifica- 
tions of society. Another followed him on the same strain. 
I stood up and met him on these issues. Our people did not 
go with the South. Why is she where she is? 

If we had chosen to aflaliate with the Church South stars 
and garters awaited us, Baltimore would, in that case, have 
been the emporium of Southern commerce. Baltimore would 
have had the Book Concern of the Church South, and would 
have concentrated the publishing interests of that Church. 
Yet she did not go; and why did she not go ? 

Dr. Thom-on says that slavery is on the increase, that it 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 253 

has more power now than it formerly had. If this be the 
fact, the Methodist Episcopal Church is not responsible for 
it. Religion never made slavery. The Church never made 
slavery. However true the remark may be as to tlie increase 
of slave-power in certain places — and I admit the force of his 
remark in some respects — however true it may be in other 
parts, it is a great mistake in regard to that part of slave ter- 
ritory within our bounds. It is not on the increase there. 
Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that in the whole of 
Baltimore City Station, according to testimony of brethren 
well informed on the subject, there is but one single slave- 
holder, and it is doubtful that there is even one. 

We have a colored membership of from 15,000 to 20,000. 
They have good churches there; they sing more svveetly and 
pray more powerfully than any people I have ever seen. I 
would rather preach to them than to any other people. They 
have their Sabbath and day-schools. You may thread the 
streets of Baltimore, and you will not meet with a single col- 
ored beggar. We do meet with beggars there, but they do 
not come from the descendants of Africa. Slavery is not on 
the increase there. Brother Griffith says it is on the decrease. 
[Several voices, " True."] Our people there have some sense. 
They know they can hire labor cheaper than they can buy it 
and become responsible for the clutliing, feeding, and sus- 
taining of the slaves when unable to labor. Slavery is on the 
decrease there, and if the Discipline be ijermitted to remain 
as it is, and operate as it has been doing, it will still decrease. 

Tlie new test of membership contained in the new 
section proposed, and the unconstitutionality of sucli 
a method, were elaborately argued by Mr. Collins, 
who also objected to such a change of the constitu- 
tion as would introduce a new rule on slavery. The 
parable of the tares he interpreted to mean: Some 
evils are such that it will do more harm to meddle 
than to desist, and such he believed to be the fact in 
regard to this question. " Let both grow until the 
harvest," was Christ's advice. 



25^ Antislaveky Stkuggle and Tkitjmph. 

A. J. Phelps, of Black Kiver Conference, said : 

It a|3pears to me almost every feature bearing against this 
measure is greatly overdrawn; the numerous membership to 
be affected ; the vast interests jeopardized in Conferences of 
recent creation in slave territory; our obligations to support 
these Conferences, to which we are said to be solemnly and sa- 
credly pledged ; the sacrifice and hazard of self-denying men of. 
God, and the interests of poor slaves themselves — are all im- 
pressed upon us to teach us the inexpediency of this measure. 

But let us look at a few statistics bearing upon these as- 
pects of the subject. 

An impression prevails to a considerable extent that a 
white membership of 143,000 is to be directly affected by any 
action on this subject. Whereas, the General Minutes of 1855 
show a white membership of only 136,332 in the six Confer- 
ences, in whole or in part, in slave territory; while nearly 
one third of Baltimore Conference, and more than half of 
Philadelphia, besides small portions of other Conferences, lie 
in the free States. In Baltimore and Philadelphia Confer- 
ences alone we have 43,967 members in free territory, which, 
deducted from the total white membership of the six Confer- 
ences, leave 92,363. Of this showing, however, 865 are local 
preachers already under restriction, and therefore not ca- 
pable of being personally affected by any proposed change; 
and 11,946 are only on trial; deduct these two classes, mak- 
ing 12,811, from the 92,063 situated in slave territory, and 
we have a membership in full connection within those limits 
of 79,552, instead of 143,000 — a large discount; nearly fifty 
per cent. From this footing deduct one third for minors, 
and one third for married ladies, and we find remaining 
26,517, the highest probable number who are capable of hold- 
ing slaves. This, therefore, is the largest number who can 
be personally afiected by the proposed measure, provided 
every one capable of holding a slave is an actual slave-holder. 
But how is this ? The census of 1850 shows that only one 
third of the families of the white population hold slaves. 
Then, provided our members are no better than the masses, 
the probable number of slave-holders among us would be 
8,834. But if all our members in that region are superior 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 255 

Methodists, possessing good, tender hearts, and only hold 
slaves for the good of the enslaved, as presented by their 
apologists, then the rule hurts no one. But suppose they are 
only comparatively good, and have some conscience, such as 
the climate will allow, and only wish to make gain out of 
human bones and sinews and souls, with moderation and 
modesty, then the proportion of slave-holders in the Church 
must be less than in the masses. What, then, is the prob- 
ability ? How many slave-holders have we in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ? Have we 5,000 or 1,000 ? Dr. Durbin, 
who is well posted about every thing, lias expressed the 
opinion that we have not less than 1,000 slave-holders in the 
Church, and we set this down as good authority. 

If this basis be correct, we have 1,000 slave-holders in the 
Church whose connection with us exposes 700,000 Methodists 
in the free States to taunts and jeers from their enemies, to 
the most excruciating tortures in their own bosoms; while 
more than 4,000 ministers are hindered in the great work of 
saving souls. The old doctrine is reversed. Our fathers 
taught, "better one suffer than many." But now the senti- 
ment is better 700,000 than 1,000. 

But this inferior minority of one to seven hundred must be 
sustained at any expense. The moral force of the w^hole 
Church must defend oppressois. Church authorities and 
Church papers must apologize for the nefarious villainy. The 
press must be muzzled, and every possible expedient seized 
upon, to hold the seven hundred in check and give the one 
ascendency. 

It is earnestly pleaded that we are under solemn obligations 
to the three newly-created Conferences in slave territory. Let 
us look at this matter a moment. These Conferences — Ken- 
tucky, Arkansas, and Missouri — taken together number fifty- 
two effective preachers in full connection, with a white mem- 
bership of 10,679, making a proportion of 205 members to 
each effective minister in the three Conferences; and yet it 
has cost the Missionary Society to carry forward this work for 
two years, 1855 and 1856, $16,200; and taking for granted 
that like appropriations were made for 1853 and 1854, it has 
drawn from our missionary funds to support these three Con- 
ferences, consisting of fifty-two members, all told, the round 



256 AXTISLAVERY STRUGGLE AND TkIUMPH. 

Piim of $32,400, Appropriations in the same ratio for the 
work in the United States alone, leaving out of account 
Kansas and Nebraska and other distant fields, would require 
an outlay of more than $3,000,000 for domestic missions 
only. 

One of the strong arguments for the institution of these 
Conferences was l)ased upon the salutary influence they miglit 
exert upon the poor slave ; and now we listen to the most 
heart-stirring appeals to our sympathy on the same suliject. 
If their hands are tied, who is to minister to the poor slave? 
If they are crippled, who is to come near to lift up the poor 
wretches and minister to their famishing souls ? All this 
sounds well, but let us see how it applies to these Confer- 
ences. How many colored people, bond and free, have been 
gathered into the Church within the limits of these three 
Conferences? The vast number of three hundred and sixty- 
five, all told ; and could such as are slaves among them be 
liere, and be allowed to speak, what would they be likely to 
say ? Would they caution you, as their friends do this day, 
Be sure not to put any thing in the book against slavery, for 
it will do us harm ? No, never ! 

The doctrine that a lax faith and easy morals are promo- 
tive of true godliness, that to indorse a grievous sin is the 
best means of removing that sin, can hardly be a question in 
morals. 

It is further alleged that our antislavery Discijiline will do 
much to-vvard extirpating this great evil. 

We submit, When and how ? This excellent little book has 
long lived in the land of oppression. Has it advanced in the 
direction of freedom ? Has it made inroads upon slavery, or 
has slavery made inroads uj^on the book ? Has it ever purged 
the Church of slavery in its most ofi'ensive forms ? Nay, 
verily; but, where left to Southern management, slavery has 
wrung out the last drop of its heart's blood, and left it a 
speechless ghost. 

Allow me to say, before taking my seat, I favor the report 
of the Committee on Slavery not because it comes up to my 
views of what should be enacted on this subject. Nor would 
my sense of responsibility allow me to go for any measure as 
a compromise where so much of principle is involved. I take 



Debate ox Slaveky— Continued. 257 

this weak solution, sir, jnst as in extremity I would take 
greatly diluted aliment as the best means at hand for pro- 
longing life. My vote will be in favor of this report because 
there is no present hope of enacting a more stringent and less 
incumbered rule, and because I think this a small advance 
toward libei'ty. I go for it, so far as constitutionality is con- 
cerned, with a whole heart and a good conscience, believing 
most sincerely that the General Rules neither require nor au- 
thorize the holding of human beings as jjroperty. 

Father Young, of tlie Ohio Conference, advised 
against so radical a change, and offered as a substitute 
for the new chapter proposed the following resolu- 
tions, which were supported bj Dr. E. Thomson : 

1. That no man has a moral light to hold a fellow-being as 
property. 

2. That it is the duty of all our members and probationers 
who may sustain the legal relation of slave-holder to teach 
their servants to read the word of God ; to allow them to at- 
tend the public worship of God on our regular days of divine 
service; to protect them in the discharge of the duties of the 
conjugal, parental, and filial relations; to give them such 
compensation for their service as may be just and equal; to 
make such provision as may be legally practicable to prevent 
them and their posterity from passing into perpetual slavery; 
and to treat them in all respects as required by the Ten Com- 
mandments and the law of love. 

3. That we recommend all our membership and ministry to 
make the condition of the Africans in bondage upon our 
shores a prominent subject of prayer; beseeching God to de- 
liver them from this bondage without servile or civil wars, 
the dissolution of our Union, or any other judgment, and to 
incline the hearts of the American people to repent of all 
their oppression, and by all possible means atone for the 
wrongs they have done to the helpless. 

4. That we advise our people to memorialize Congress to 
provide by law that whenever any slave State shall signify 
her willingness to emancipate her slaves, such State shall re- 

17 



258 Antislayery Struggle axd Triumph. 

ceive for her slaves a reasonable compensation from the na- 
tional treasury for the slaves so emancipated. 

The only action had upon these resolutions was, 
after one speech, to lay them on the table to be 
printed. 

W. B. Disbro, of E'orth Ohio Conference, in con- 
cluding an elaborate speech, said : 

AVhat shall this General Conference do to extirpate the evil 
of slavery ? This is the great question. Will she do any 
thing ? We answer, Let something be done, some advanced 
step be taken, or send us not back to our people. If nothing 
is done our hearts shall mourn and our heads hang down as 
we go to the people again. Let us at least take one step. 
Let all be done that we have power to do to put the Church 
right before the world on this subject. 

1. We should adopt the preamble to the majority report. 
This would be a clear declaration of antislavery sentiment. 

2. We should vote on a change in the General Rule. Let 
us have a constitutional majority here ; then the Annual Con- 
ferences will follow our example, and in a short time the 
work will be complete. 

3. We should adopt the first declaration of the proposed 
chapter. It answers the question, " What shall be done for 
the extirpation of the evil of slavery ? " All men have an 
equal right to freedom, and no man has a moral right to hold 
his fellow-being as property. 

4. We may int<^rpret the present General Rule so as to 
make our understanding of it strictly antislavery. We may 
pass strong antislavery resolutions, so as to make our records 
place us right before the Church. Whatever we do let us do 
nothing to tighten the chains of the bondmen, nothing to in- 
crease slavery influence among us. The captive prays, the 
whole heart of the Church is raised in prayer to God that this 
General Conference may be guided by divine wisdom, and 
reach such conclusions as shall send hope to the downtrod- 
den, save the Church from the reproach of her enemies, and 
secure to all her bounds purity, peace, unity, and prosperity 
evermore. 



Debate on Slayeey — Continued. 259 

Mr. Clark, of Wyoming Conference, said : 

I am in favor of a change; had no sympathy with those 
memorialists who came here crying, "No change!" They 
did not propose to do any thing, but contented themselves 
W'ith crying, "No change!" He was in favor of the report 
fur several reasons. It proposes to exercise a just discrimina- 
tion; it is founded on principle. Our position heretofore has 
been founded on expediency. It is also constitutional and 
according to precedent. The General Rules of our Church 
are not properly a constitution ; they have none of the distin- 
guishing features of a constitution. He would show them 
that the General Conference had not so regarded it. In eight 
different instances it, of itself, has made changes affecting the 
condition of retaining membershiji in the Church, and six of 
which vary the terms ujDon which persons are to be received. 

The speaker quoted largely from Emory's " History 
of the Discipline " to substantiate this position. 

Dr. F. Hodgson, of Philadeljohia Conference, ob- 
jected to the majority report ; that it was self-contra- 
dictory ; that it allowed a man to assume a forbidden, 
an unlawful, relation to another for the sake of con- 
ferring a benefit ; that it does not secure the object at 
which its friends aimed ; that it proposes a judicial 
practice contrary to the most equitable and established 
maxims, in assuming the guilt of parties, and putting 
them upon proof of innocence ; that it attempts to 
sit in judgment on men's motives ; that it required 
what w^ould not be for the good of the slave ; that it 
had a political aspect. After an able speech in oppo- 
sition to the majority report, he closed by saying : 

We are in the midst of perilous times. The outside press- 
ure has been spoken of. I know it is great, and we are in 
danger of being borne down by it. Be careful of making 
changes now ; we do not know what will be the consequences. 
There is danger. The eyes of the world are upon us, it is 



260 Antislavery Stkuggle and Tkiumph. 

said; ah, yes! two sets of eyes are glaring fearfully npon us — 
the eyes of the great political parties. Would to God they 
would leave us alone, to prosecute our own appropriate work. 
When the Church was weak politicians cared hut little for 
her ; but now she has grown strong each is eager to make 
her its tool. If the Church turns aside she will become 
weak, like Samson. Her eyes will be put out. She will be 
shorn of her strength; and when she feels for the pillars of 
heathenism she will be unable to pull them down. He 
would be ashamed of his brethren if he thought they had not 
grace enough in their hearts to let political parties alone, and 
l^ursue their one great work of saving souls. 

John Dempster, of Kock Eiver Conference, said : 

My aim will be: First, To identify the character of slav- 
ery, which the report proposes to remove from our Church. 
Slavery proper cannot imply something apart from the inten- 
tions and acts of the master, or from that coercive control in 
w^hose grasp the slave is a tool. It cannot claim to partici- 
pate in both good and evil, so as to be susceptible of either a 
useful or perverted application. It is not that which the 
force of events can change or modify, as though it were of a 
mixed nature. It can pass no mutation, but by destruction; 
can have no altered relations, but by perishing. 

The evils of slavery have been referred to the abuse of the 
system of slavery. Were the reference correct, the system 
would be good ; as when evil arises from the perversion of 
principles, good is their legitimate operation. Christianity, 
in its perverted application, has crowded dungeons with con- 
fessors, and fed the flames with martyrs. In its legitimate 
application, the reverse must forever be its workings. So, 
if slavery has only w^rought evil to the extent of its perver- 
sion, its excellences need sustaining by no better evidence. 
But is it impossible to abuse a system so far as it is only evil? 
Let us test slavery by this rule at a single point. Beyond all 
question, slavery divests its victim of every shadow of liber- 
ty, personal, domestic, and civil. It abolishes his right to 
the appropriation of his faculties — his right to his wife, hia 
children, and to citizenship. What, then, has it left him? 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 261 

Life? But does this wholesale robbery leave life any longer 
a boon? He has been plundered of all that last right of 
created mind — the right to himself — and, by losing this, he 
has lost all else which this comprehended — all which has been 
given from heaven — all which lay within the range of human 
acquisition on earth. It is true a few scattered beams of 
original truth may pierce that gloom which is indispensable 
to his continued thralldom; but those rather disclose his ca- 
lamity than administer relief. He is shut out from the very 
God that made him by unavoidable ignorance of his revealed 
M^ord ; he is cut off from all communications with him through 
his speaking works. The light in which these can be read 
would show the unendurable horrors of his thralldom : it must, 
therefore, be shut out from his soul. What more has he to 
lose? Not his wife; she is torn from him, and dragged with 
shrieks to distant bondage. Not his children ; bathed in 
tears, they are hurried away by a new master to another 
State. Not his own faculties; these his master has appropri- 
ated, and they must be so applied under the power of the 
lash. 

There is no future within the limits of life on which kin- 
dled hope can cast a beam. Has not slavery consummated its 
ruin by its own legitimate workings ? Is there one green 
spot in his desert-life which it has not blighted ? 

The propi'ietary principle, binding society in union, lies 
dead and in ruin in his soul. His master has usurped his 
Maker's throne— has made him property — a chattel, like the 
beast with which he toils — a thing, like the soil he digs — 
like the clod on which he treads. What, then, remains for 
him to fear, but the curse of protracted being ? What to 
hope, but the utter unconsciousness of wiiat he now is ? What 
other language can the wild scream of his completed degra- 
dation utter, but that of defiance to all authority and all 
agents, to add another drop of agony to his overflowing cup? 
Let the inquiry be pressed with the deepest emphasis, wheth- 
er any abuse of the system can make it worse? Whether it 
be possible to rob a man of more than himself? You ask, 
then, is not half starving a slave making his condition worse 
than to be well fed? Is not twenty lashes a day worse than 
an unwounded back? True ; but does not slavery authorize 



262 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

both these? Though they are abuses of the slave, they are 
not abuses of the system. Does not this fully authorize the 
master to so treat his slave, if he judges it for his interest ? 
It is alleged that, it being against his interest, the slave has 
an indemnity against it. But how readily does interest yield 
to passion ? Does not the system expose the slave to become 
the victim of it ? Well, sir, would it be for our humanity, 
were interest — even perverted to selfishness — the paramount 
force acting on society. There is a more wasting agency in 
the fiery gust of passion. Whether this raves in revenge or 
lust, woe to the defenseless victim of its fury. 

Ah, sir, there is a sense in which a person can be robbed 
of more than herself — her master may make her not his prop- 
erty only. He may outrage those delicate instincts wliicli 
God has planted deepest in woman's mysterious nature. The 
daughter of the noble Roman found a deliverer from the 
brutal lust of lawless power in her father's hand, which fast- 
ened a javelin in her heart to prevent her purity from being 
spotted. But who shall protect from brutal pollution the en- 
slaved negress ? She is property, she must be appropriated, 
she must be an unresisting victim of that polluting act for 
which, by another woman, death would be a just infliction. 
But is this shocking crush of all that is most lovely in human 
form — of what the laws of men and the laws of God liave 
continued to guard as forever inviolate — is this in the control 
of the master's passion, by the very law of that property 
which he has in his slave? 

In the light of all truth, then, slavery must be pronounced a 
sin against God and against humanity; a sin to be classed 
with theft, robbing, falsehood, swearing, and licentiousness. 
If those guilty of any of this class of sins can be admitted to 
the sacraments of the Church, those guilty of all should be. 
The Scriptures class these together. 

VVhat is called slavery is capable of existing in two forms: 
that of mere legal relation, leaving the slave really invested 
with his rights and only nominally belonging to his master, 
and that which embraces the most malignant principles of 
slavery. Now, which of these did the apostles admit into 
the Church? Was it slavery both in its form and malignant 
principles? Then we demand why? You answer that the 



Debate on Slavery — Continued. 263 

Christianity inculcated in the Churcli might more eftectuall}^ 
abolish the principles of slavery. In other words, there can 
be no mode of removing sin so eflfectually from the world 
as by taking it in the Clmrch. This, then, is the position 
of the advocates for slavery in our Church. Now, lot the 
principle be fairly tested. If it applies to the sin of slavery, 
let them inform us why it does not apply to all sins: to theft, 
robbery, lewdness, drunkenness, and the entire list of sins 
excluding men from God's kingdom. At this point we must 
irresistibly press them. The question must be distinctly 
answered. Why take this sin into the Church to cure it, and 
not all sins ? Doubtless, the debauchee would, in the Church, 
be encompassed with influences far more favorable to his re- 
form than in the brothel. Why not permit him to alternate 
between the bed of pollution and the table of the Lord ? 
Why not reform the highway robber in the same manner? 
The Church is more favorable to that end than the banditti. 
Do you allege that the cases are not parallel? Then the ro!> 
ber's is less aggravating. He has filched your purse, but 
permitted yoa to escape in possession of your other rights. 
The slave-holder has filched your ownership in yourself, and 
thereby left no right possible. Why should not the robber, 
the less guilty, be admitted to equal advantages ? If the 
Church can best remove the evil of slavery by having it in its 
bosom, the same reason should put all other sins there. 
Would this make the Church one vast receptacle of all that 
degrades humanity? But this is simply the application of the 
princii3le ; will its advocates show us why it admits of appli- 
cation in one case and not in all others of the same kind ? 
They cannot be allowed to apply it in this case and reject it in 
all similar cases without reasons of great cogency. The brief 
conclusion, then, which forces itself upon us is this : Either 
slavery, including its essential principles, is no sin, or it was 
never admitted by the apostles into the Church, or the 
Church should admit men into it practicing all kinds of sin. 
The first, that slavery, including all its malignant principles, 
is not a sin, not one present will aflirm. The third, that sin- 
ners of every kind and degree, should be admitted into the 
Church, is just as universally rejected. But are such aware 
that the rejection of these two compels the adoption of the 



2G4 Antislaveky Struggle and Triumph. 

other ? That if they believe chattelizing slavery is a sin, and 
that sinners of all kinds should not be admitted to the 
Church, they cannot believe that the apostles admitted chat- 
telizing slave-holders to the Church. . . . 

AVhat is there in the General Rule with which the pro- 
posed chapter in the majority report is in conflict? The 
chapter in the first and second answers in resolution second, 
proposes to terminate slavery in our Church. Now with 
what is this in conflict in the rule? The rule employs two 
classes of terms: the one general, tlie other particular. It 
employs two words. The first class of terms is found in these 
w^ords, "avoiding evil of every kind.-' The second of these, 
''buying or selling men, women, and children, with the in- 
tention to enslave them.'' The connecting words are "such 
as." It is true these connecting words are but once used ; 
but as it is palpable to all that they would connect the gen- 
eral term with every specification in the rule, were the ellipses 
supplied, their force is recognized at every step. The lan- 
guage of the rule is, then, "avoiding evil of every kind, such 
as buying and selling," etc., etc. 

Now, if there be evil of any other form of slavery, as the 
general term recognizes every evil of it, it must be included 
with these two here expressed. Why must they, sir ? Be- 
cause it is an element of evil of every kind, and the avoidance 
of this is expressly required ; because it is such as these two 
expressly prohibited. Is not that in the proposed change, 
namely, the prohibition of slave-holding in the Church; is 
not this slave-holding of the exact moral character of buying 
with an intention to enslave ? Observe, sir, it is not buying 
or selling that the rule prohibits. What is it, then? "The 
intention to enslave." Well, sir, I inherit a slave and hold 
him in slavery ; have I, in this, an intention to enslave ? 
Most certainly. Is not this, then, the identical thing which 
the rule forbids? Is not this all that the proposed chapter 
forbids? Can they be out of harmony? Is not the guilty 
element just the same in one who liokls the inherited slave 
as i^roperty as in him who sells the victim as such? Such as 
doubt this must show the moral incongruity in the two 
things: that my holding property in a man is not like enabling 
another to do it; that holding him as a slave myself, just as 



Debate on Slavery — Contixued. 265 

m}' neiglibor would do it, is still a very unlikely thing to do- 
ing it; that intending to hold him as a chattel, and intend- 
ing to sell him as a chattel, occupy in ethics by no means the 
same sphere. 

Now, sir, if this distinction is a dream, and the acts are two 
only in name, then how can the chapter which forbids the 
one be repugnant to the rule which forbids the other? It is 
hoped none will confound the particulars expressed under 
this General Rule with exhaustive specifications which are 
intended to express every sj^ecies which is contained in the 
genus. For the reasons submitted they can be intended 
merely as specimens, and, therefore, leave the fullest scope to 
include everything like them. 

James B. Finley, of Cincinnati Conference, opposed 
all new tests, because now only those who forsake 
their sins are eligible to membership in the Church ; 
and slavery is a sin that must be forsaken. The 
Bible is against it. The whole Discipline of the 
Church is against it, and the only thing necessary to 
keep slavery out of the Church was to administer 
faithfully under the one test of forsaking all sin in 
order to admission therein. 

James Cunningham, of the Philadelphia Confer- 
ence, opposing the majority report, criticised sharply 
some of the arguments used by its friends. The con- 
struction of the General Rule which made it pro- 
hibit all slave-holding, he declared, was an after- 
thought, and had its birth in the Slavery Committee 
or on the Conference floor. He had never heard of 
it until coming to this General Conference. "Ab- 
surd as it is, it became necessary to assume and 
maintain it in order to justify the report of the ma- 
jority. But in all the border w^ork we stand com- 
mitted to antislavery principles, and our Churcli 
is exerting an influence that depends upon our Disci- 



26G AXTISLAVERY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

pline remaining as it is. The petitioners for cliange 
numbered four thousand in all. But seven hundred 
thousand had not expressed their wishes." He had no 
doubt that three fourths of our entire membership 
desired the Discipline to remain as it is. " The only 
testimony borne against slavery in slave territory is 
borne by the Methodist Episcopal Church. And if 
our Church is anywhere a pillar of cloud by day and 
of fire by night it is such in our slave territory." 



Debate on Slaveuy — Concluded. 2G7 



CHAPTEK XXIY. 

debate on slavery — CONCLUDED. 

ABEL STEYENS, of the Providence Conference, 
- said : 

Tlie main points involved in this constitutional question 
are these : 

First, We have a series of terms of membership called the 
"General Rules," whicli are a part of the constitutional law 
of the Church, and one of which prohibits "the buying or 
selling of men, women, and children, with an intention to en- 
slave them." 

Second. The report before us proposes, as we allege, to 
make non-slaveholding a term of membership, and would 
thereliy violate not only the existing G-eneral Rule, which 
prohibits only the "buying and selling" of slaves, but also 
the "restrictive," by rejecting the only authorized process 
for such a change. It is, therefore, a double assault upon the 
C(mstitution of the Churcli, and however desirable the change 
it proposes may be, if rightly procured and applied, it is, as 
now proposed, pregnant with evil and disaster — as defeating 
the end sought, by enabling the opposition to disdain and 
disol)ey it should they remain in the Church, or turn it upon 
us should they revolt; pointing to the violated constitution as 
a motive of sympathy and co-operation from all the inter- 
mediate strength of the Church between the "border" and 
the North; pointing to it in all litigations for the local or 
general property of the Church amid the confusions that may 
follow its enactments. 

My objections to this report are twofold— the obvious con- 
stitutional defect referred to, and the peril of a measure 
so extraordinary to the unity of the Church, and, by conse- 
quence, to the cause of the slave himself. 



268 Antislayeey Struggle and TRirMPH. 

There are two classes of thinkers among us respecting the 
right to make new terms of membership. First. Those who 
contend that we can make no new General Rules whatsoever, 
except by the process prescribed in the restrictive rules — the 
two-thirds majority here, the three-fourths majority in the 
Annual Conferences. To these brethren, of course, the docu- 
ment before us is inadmissible. It prescribes non-slavehold- 
ing as a condition of membership in the Church. Now, this 
must be a new rule, an old rule, or no rule. There is no 
other possibility for it. It certainly belongs not to the last 
category of being no rule. It prohibits the admission of 
slave-holders in our Church hereafter under given circum- 
stances. This is certainly a rule or condition of membership. 
Is it, then, an old or a new rule ? Assuredly it is not an old 
one, for what then would be the use of re-enacting it by the 
chapter of this report? It results, then, that it must be a 
new one, and therefore inadmissible to all such as believe 
that we cannot adopt a new General Rule but by the provis- 
ion of the restrictive rules. 

Second. The other class of thinkers are few among us, and cer- 
tainly very recent. I know not that they have ever appeared 
except in connection with this controversy. They contend that 
the restriction on the change of the General Rules interferes 
not with the adoption of new rules, provided tlie latter be not 
incompatible with the old ones ; that it interferes only with 
tlie change of the old ones; not with an addition to the series 
of the rules, but with a change of individual rules. 

The question then presents itself precisely here : Is this 
proposed rule incompatible with any existing one ? I contend 
that it is, and my reply to the question will be equally ap- 
plicable to the many brethren here who consider the objec- 
tionable section of the report as only an explanatory declara- 
tion of the old rule. They will please to observe this fact. 

. 1. The existing General Rule prohibits the acquisition of 
slave property by the slave traffic — that is, the "buying or 
selling of men, women, and children," etc. I use the word 
traffic, not because it is the best, but because it is the most 
convenient. Now I affirm that this prohibition of the acquisi- 
tion of slaves by purchase implies, by the peculiar circum- 
stances in whicli it was made, the right to hold them by 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 2^0 

inheritance. Here is a law affecting tlie great fcict of slavery ; 
that fact is chiefly continued by inheritance; the traffic, enor- 
mous as it is, is but an incident of the system compared with 
the vast range of its transmission by inheritance. But with 
the latter are complicated the property, lieirship, business, 
and domestic establisliments of families. It could not, there- 
fore, be treated as uncompromisingly as llie traffic. The pur- 
chase of slaves is. therefore, prohibited, while the inheritance 
of them is left untouched. Slave-holding itself is therefore 
not prohibited ; in other words, sad a fact as it may be to 
many of you, slave-holding itself is allowed by the General 
Rules, the organic law of the Church, and, therefore, the intro- 
duction of a new General Rule prohibiting it is in contraven- 
tion of the present General Rule, and can be done only by 
constitutional process provided in the restrictive rule. 

Such, I insist, is the only legitimate construction of the 
literal expression of the rule. No other view is possible when 
you look it thus deliberately in the face. You may lament it; 
I lament it ; we might have been saved infinite evil had the 
policy of the Church been otherwise from the beginning ; but 
such has it been, and the question is not now how to evade, 
but how to rectify it — whether by an infraction of your or- 
ganic law you shall provide a dead-letter to be justly rejected 
and disdained by your opponents, should they continue with 
you, or to be fatally used against you should they be driven 
from you, and thus in either case defeat your own designs 
pushing the slave farther and farther from your helping 
reach, or overthrowing the unity and strength of the Church, 
and this for the sake of a measure which it is in your power 
fully to secure by the prescribed constitutional process. 

2. I have said that the whole history of the Church in re- 
lation to slavery confirms this interpretation of the General 
Rule. 

Let us now look more deliberately at its relation to that evil 
before, at the time of, and ever since the introduction of this 
General Rule. 

Prior to the adoption of the restrictive rules— that is from 
1784 to 1808 — the General Conference had unrestricted power 
over the subject. Its enactments respecting it varied. It was 
intent upon doing something effective, but was confounded 



270 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

at every point b}' the embarrassments of the question. At 
the memorable ''Christmas Conference," 1784, having yet un- 
restricted powers, it prohibited all slave-holding on the part 
of our members; but, notwithstanding its plenary powers, it 
announces this law with noticeable diffidence, being "deeply 
conscious," it says, "of the impropriety of making new terms 
of communion for a religious society already established, ex- 
cepting on the most pressing occasion." Before this extreme 
measure it had only ventured to denounce slavery, and to 
"pass its disapprobation on all our friends who keep slaves, 
and to advise their freedom." This prohibitory law of the 
Christmas Conference was accompanied with numerous pro- 
visos, granting many delays and conveniences for emancipa- 
tion, and subjecting the whole enactn^ent to the supremacy of 
tlie varying laws of the different slave-holding States. 

But now note one most important fact just here, namely^ 
that under a distinct question appended to this law the ^'■hiy- 
ing or selling'''' of slaves — the very subject of the present Gen- 
eral Rule — is treated also, and all the delays and indulgent 
conditions of the preceding law are avoided ; the " buyers " 
and the "sellers" are "immediately to be expelled, unless 
they buy them on purpose to free them." So reads this sec- 
ond law. Here, then, we see conclusively how " the fathers " 
discriminated the traffic, the "buying and selling," from the 
holding of slaves, even while providing for the extirpation of 
both, and the former is distinguished by the very terms which 
are used in our present General Rule. Let this fact be care- 
fully noticed, for it clinches our argument. 

But this is not all. The agitation produced by this com- 
prehensive action against not only slave " buying and sell- 
ing," but "slave-holding" itself, was so violent that in a few 
months it was deemed necessary to suspend the law, and in 
1785 the suspension was announced, and a Nota Bene inserted 
containing a more general declaration against the evil. And 
now mark, sir, this conclusive fact, namely, that the very next 
year, 1786, after the long, detailed law against all slave-hold- 
ing was repealeil, the other law, passed at tiie same time, 
against buying and selling slaves, is retained in the Disci- 
pline. The prohibition of simple slave-holding, with all its 
accommodating provisions, is abandoned because of the dis- 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 271 

turbance it had produced by its bearing on ftimilies and tlieir 
legalized property in slaves; but the absolute, unconditional, 
uncompromising law which accompanied it, and wdiich was 
exclusively against "buying and selling" slaves, is retained. 
Why could this be kept and not the otlier ? Because it evi- 
dently referred to the traffic; and the traffic, known and 
acknowledged every-where to be atrocious and infamous, 
could be less hazardously condemned. And now I repeat, 
this retained part of the law is identical in sense, and almost 
so in words, with our existing General Rule, the rule which 
the advocates of the report before you contend comprises 
"slave-holding" as well as slave-" buying; " a construction 
utterly fallacious, but without whiclj they would be compelled 
to abandon the chapter of their report as unconstitutional. 
The only essential difference is that it prohibits the giving 
away of slaves as well as the buying and selling of them — an. 
important fact to be recalled directly. 

But this is not all. The retained part of the old law was 
the only statute on the subject till the present General Rule 
was inserted among our constitutional laws. Only three 
years elapsed before that change was made. 

Here, then, we have four notable facts. First, The enact- 
ment of a law specifically against slave-holding, accompanied 
by a distinct law against slave " buying and selling." Sec- 
ond, The repeal of the first, owing to the hostility which w^as 
produced by its complication with recognized property and 
household establishment. Third, The retention of the second, 
made possible, notwithstanding all this hostility, by the fact 
that it was addressed to an atrocious and ignominious inci- 
dent of slavery — the traffic. Fourth, The incorporation, a 
short time afterward, of this retained prohibition into the 
constitutional law of the Church, in language essentially iden- 
tical in meaning, and nearly so in words, with the exception 
of a j)hrase against the giving away of slaves, which is omit- 
ted. Now, confronting these historical facts of the case, can 
we longer doubt the sense of the General Rule ? 

Every incident, every accident, of its history thus bears 
down irresistibly to my conclusion. Why even the omission 
of that phrase respecting the giving away of slaves ? It had 
been retained while the ordinance remained only as a common 



272 AXTISLAYEKY STRUGGLE AND TeR-MPH. 

statute, but riow that this statute is to be exalted to the su- 
preme importance of a constitutional law, it is omitted. 
Why? Evidently because slave-holding — the transmission 
of slaves in families — was not intended to be prohibited. 
The gift of slaves to children at marriage; the settlement of 
them by parents at death on other branches of the family, 
might seem to be embarrassed by the i)hrase. Hence in mak- 
ing the rule a constitutional law it was more carefully 
guarded. And thus it stands to-day, with all these historical 
incidents and exponents about it, defining and defending in- 
vincibly its literal sense. 

And, still more than all this — for I have thus far only 
shown, first, what was our action on slavery prior to this 
General Rule, and, secondly, at its inception — what now does 
the subsequent course-of the Church testify on the subject? 
It has been one unbroken demonstration of my interpreta- 
tion of the law. Brethren who favor this report in order to 
introduce, without the constitutional process, a rule virtually 
against slave-holding itself, assert that the present General 
Rule is such. But where is a single historical fact that sup- 
ports them ? When the rule was enacted the Church included 
slave-holders in all parts of its slave territory; but was it ap- 
plied then to a single case ? 

A few years afterward Coke and Asbury wrote their Notes 
on the Discipline. They commented on this very rule, but 
without a single intimation that it applied to any thing else 
than the " buying and selling " of slaves, though slavery was 
extensively extant in the Church, 

The same year in which their Notes appear, appears also in 
the Discipline a long chapter making various provisions for 
the trial of those who may " buy or sell " slaves, and certain 
guards against the promotion of slave-holders themselves to 
ofiicial posts of example, but without one prohibitory word, 
against the domestic possession of slaves. More than this, 
that very chapter contains a paragraph making the slave- 
holder admissible to the Church, on condition that *'the 
preacher shall have spoken to him freely and faithfully on the 
subject of slavery," but without a word requiring emanci- 
pation. 

In 1812 the General Conference, being then under the 



Debate on Slayeey — Conclijded. 273 

restrictive rule, omitted all the chapter of ordinary statutes on 
slavery, but retained the constitutional or General Rule, 
wliicli it could not chanoe, and referred the mode of its ;id- 
ministration to the Annual Conferences; but the act by which 
it was thus referred said not a w^ord about slave-holding; it 
S])eaks of the ''buying and selling" of slaves alone. 

Laws have been repeatedly made keeping slave-holders from 
the oiBcial posts of the Cliurch, but never from private mem- 
bership. 

Thus, during sixty-seven years, the action of the Church 
has been continued on the sul^ject, and has uniformly shov.n 
that non-slaveholding has not been a condition of member- 
ship, except for a few agitated months before the adoption 
of the present General Rule, and never once since its adop- 
tion. How can we evade the long unbroken demonstration 
of these facts ? 

3. And now, I ask, does not this literal and historical con- 
struction of the rule accord with the best principles of legal 
interpretation ? 

It is a familiar maxim of the bar that the exception proves 
the law — excejitio prolat requenm. The practical or virtual 
law of the Church being the admission of slave-holders, the 
exceptions are the exclusion of the "buyers" and "sellers" 
of slaves, and the specifications of these exceptions prove the 
virtual or practical law. "The force of the maxim," says 
Whateley, "the force of the maxim (which is not properly 
confined to the case of an exception, strictly so called) is this: 
'that the mention of any circumstance introduced into the 
statement of either a definition or of a precept, law, remark, 
etc., is to be presumed necessary to be inserted, so that the 
precept, etc., would not hold good if this pi-ecept were ab- 
sent.' In short, the word only, or some such expression, is 
supposed to be understood. If, e. g., it be laid down that he 
wdio breaks into an empty house shall receive a certain punish- 
ment, it would be inferred that this punishment would not 
be incurred by breaking into an occupied house; if it were 
told us that some celestial phenomenon could not be seen by 
the naked eye, it might be inferred that it might be visible 
through a telescope," etc. 

The existing General Rule is a negative law ; it prohibits 
18 



274 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

slave-bnying and selling, thereby authorizing or permitting 
Slave -holding by inheritance. ISTegative laws often authorize 
infinitely more than they prohi1)it. A law prohibiting the 
circulation of paper money under five dollars prohibits only 
four denominations, but authorizes the circulation of any 
numbers beyond, even to millions. A law prohibiting the sale 
of ardent spirits in less quantities than a quart authorizes the 
sale of a quart, a keg, a hogshead, or a thousand hogsheads. 
Turn to the chapter of your Discipline on slavery, and you 
will find another example : Official members are prohibited 
from holding slaves — a fact that certainly implies that unoffi- 
cial members may hold them — and so Abolitionists have al- 
ways interpreted and always complained of the law. Such is 
the true method, as I believe, of interpreting our actual law 
on slavery, and such the inevitable result of its interpretation. 
Metaphysics are seldom an aid to legal investigation ; the en- 
lightened judge on the bench will take one clear, literal criti- 
cism, one illustrative historical fact, as more decisive than a 
thousand metaphysical subtleties. Tlie whole literal showing 
of the law, and all the facts of our connection, as a Church, 
with slavery for nearly three quarters of a century confront 
and confound any metaphysical construction of the present 
case contrary to that which we have given. 

The precepts of the General Rules, of " doing no harm," of 
"doing good," etc., have been assumed as authorizing a new 
law against slavery without the jjrocess of restrictive rule; 
and examples have been quoted from our past legislation. 
One or two such examples have occurred, but our best judges 
of law would say, I think, that they were unconstitutionally 
obtained, however they may be, otherwise, compatible with 
the constitution. They are unimportant, however, I think, in 
this controversy. If these vague precepts authorize any such 
liberties with our constitutional rights of membership, such 
liberties must certainly be limited to generally conceded 
points; especially must they not interfere with matters al- 
ready in the law by direct specification or equally inevitable 
implication. But besides the general principle to "do no 
harm," or to "do good," etc., we have the specific rule on 
slavery, and this, as I have shown, has its clear, literal, and 
liistorical meaning. No general precept can interfere with 



Debate on Slaveky — Concluded. 275 

this, for no general precept can contravene a specific law 
given in the same code or the same document. 

The result is that the existing General Rule authorizes 
simple slave-holding. It does not discriminate the moral char- 
acter of this slave-holding, though it does that of the traffic ; 
the discrimination of the former is implied in the general 
moral signifiauce of our organization; it is implied in our 
secondary laws on slavery, but it is not specified in the terms 
of the constitutional law. Let it come out, then, sir, for the 
sake of frankness, for the sake of repentance, for the sake of 
amendment, let it be acknowledged that historically, consti- 
tutionally, administratively, we have been a slave-holding., 
though an antislavery., Church, Not pro-slavery., mark, but 
antislavery., yet admitting slave-holders — not because slavery 
is right, not because the Church admits it to be right. On 
the contrary, she declares it to be a great evil, yet has always 
held that she could not refuse a man admission into her com- 
munion simply on the ground that he was a slave-holder. 
We cannot deny it. You deplore it; every man here from the 
^'border" deplores it, even though he may deem it a neces- 
sary fact. We deplore it, but cannot deny it. 

How shall we reform the stern and sad fact. That is the 
question, and should be the gist of all our present rambling 
debates. How ? Not by overriding the constitution and all 
the unmistakable monuments of our history respecting it; 
not by rending the Church by the provocations of an unau- 
thorized and, therefore, oppressive proceeding; not by shak- 
ing down the walls of its strength that now bear up so many 
guns pointed against the evil merely because a single angle 
of those walls defends it. Such violent measures might call 
forth the shouts of the thoughtless multitudes, or gratify our 
personal antislavery zeal; but we are here not as a mob nor 
as zealots, but as legislators. The highest religious respon- 
sibilities of this continent center in this hall to-day. Meth- 
odism, though once severed and shivered by this terrible evil, 
stands yet forth in its organic unity, solidity, and mightiness 
throughout these Middle and Northern States. Shall the 
giant genius of discord, Samson-like, shake down its remain- 
ing pillars, and lay its remaining strength in the dust? 
Another division of the Church could not, we all know, be 



27G AXTISLAYEKY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

limited to the border. It would strike its desolating fract- 
ures, like the rending of an earthquake, through all our solid 
central strength to the very ISTorth itself. Our denomina- 
tional history would close, sir, with another such a disaster. 
Fragments of the stately structure might remain, but frag- 
ments which would themselves only crumble more and more 
away. And sliall we incur this peril at a day in which, by 
social and political causes, as well as religious, every liour is 
enlarging our antislavery field and facilitating the speedy, if 
not peaceful conquest — the self-conquest^ it may be — of tlie 
very region where this unguarded blow must strike most 
ruinously, and whence it must rebound most disastrously upon 
ourselves ? 

Two positions have I always maintained in my long edito- 
rial career, on this subject; the first, that our antislavery action 
must always bear with it the guarantee of the constitution; 
secondly, that it should be so guarded as never to lose its 
most important fields, as I deem them — the fields of the Bor- 
der Conferences, where no man who knows any thing about 
them can doubt that its ultimate triumph is certain, though 
it be slow. 

Both for the good of the slave and the good of the Church, 
then, do I plead here for a modification of this report. Let 
us have action on slavery, and let us have it as far forward 
as we can without breaking up the constitution and breaking 
down the Church. These are my only restriction?. I send 
forth this avowal to all my friends, to all my enemies, and 
will stand by it or fall by it. Any other course must be fatal 
to our own ends; why, then, should we insist upon it? Are 
we contending only for phrases? for speculative opinions? 
or for practical results ? In any contingency whatever this 
document must fail of practical advantage. If it fails here it 
will fail because of the defect I have pointed out. If it fails 
not here, yet will it fail elsewhere, on the same account; it 
will be decried and cast away as a dead letter because of its 
alleged unconstitutionality. In either case, therefore, it will 
fail, and fail, too, because brethren will persist in retaining 
a form of words which many conscientious men cannot admit. 
One only other result can follow: it may not fail in another 
respect; it may be the occasion of dis mi )n, and in that caoo 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 277 

its disastrous liabilities would affect every litigation, every 
title of local or general propert3% between the parties. Is, then, 
this the Christian-like, statesman-like measure that the exigen- 
cies of this hour demand at our hands ? For the sake, then, of 
the slave, for the sake of the Church, admit, dear brethren, this 
feeble plea of one to whom both are as dear as to any of you. 

B. F. Crary, of Indiana Conference, was in favor of a 
change of Discipline on the subject of slavery, because : 

The regulations of the Discipline do not come up to the 
standard of i^ublic opinion in the Church since her organiza- 
tion, and the law of the Church ought to express her opinions 
on great moral questions. The law of the Church does not 
prohibit slave-holding nor extirpate slavery, although it com- 
mences boldly and nobly with the stirring question, "What 
shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of slavery?" Ex- 
tirpation, from ex and stirpo^ means, from the roots — taking 
out by the roots. And yet this earnest and solemn question 
is followed by the softest possible laws, provisos, and excep- 
tions, which can only cut off the topmost branches of this tree 
we were determined to uproot. The law never reached the 
roots; they are green and vigorous, and have entwined them- 
selves around the very heart of the Church. We might con- 
struct a statute of similar import on the subject of polygamy. 

It is not my intention to reproach the fathers by contrast- 
ing this law on slavery with a like statute on polygamy, but 
with the utmost regard for them, and the sole intention of 
showing how much we need a change in this law, I will write 
it thus — Of Polygamy. 

Question — What shall be done for the extirpation of the 
great evil of polygamy? 

Answer 1. We declare that we are as much as ever con- 
vinced of the great evil of polygamy ; therefore, no man hav- 
ing two or more wives shall be eligible to any official station 
in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which 
he lives will admit of divorce, and permit the divorced wife 
to enjoy good society. 

Is that prohibitory ? 

Ans. 2. When any traveling preacher becomes the husband 
of more than one wife, by any means, he shall forfeit his 



278 Antislayery Struggle and Teiu^eph. 

ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it 
be practicable, a legal divorcement of all his wives but one, 
conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives. 

Is adequate punishment meted to the offender here ? Does 
that law prohibit ? 

Aks. 3. All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon our 
members the necessity of teaching their wives to observe all 
the duties of the conjugal relation according to the word 
of God ; and husbands must treat their wives with equal 
kindness, permitting them to enjoy equal authority in the 
family, etc. 

Is this a prohibitory or a license law ? It is a regulating 
law, a law which does not attempt to strike the monster, but 
simply coaxes and lulls him. 

We can come to no other conclusion than the sad one, that 
our disciplinary laws were never intended to prohibit mere 
slave-holding. It can and does exist under these extirpating 
provisions. The roots grew and flourished amid the wander- 
ing members of the Church; its branches, dark and deadly, 
overshadowed the ministry, and at last its bitter fruits were 
gladly caught and held by episcopal hands, and that vener- 
able and honorable Board was vilely contaminated by the 
unhallowed contact. The Church was startled. A moral 
revolution was the result; convulsion followed convulsion on 
the border; desolation and grief went in their train. We 
leave the sickening details. We remember the opinions ad- 
vanced by the members of tlie Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, at the first General Conference after the division. They 
said, and truly said, we presume, that those laws on slavery 
were a dead-letter. They had not kept them ; they did not 
intend to do so. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
grew up under this peculiarly extirpating regime. They are 
bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, and with all their 
faults we love them still; our training made them. 

We conclude that under the circumstances by which we 
were surrounded down to 1844 our rules did not do much 
toward the destruction of slavery. Private members, leaders, 
stewards, exhorters, preachers, traveling preachers, presiding 
elders, and bishops became slave-holders under this process. 
Is it not time to chansre ? With sorrow and resfret I must 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 279 

acknowledge that our Discipline is liable to the charge of 
being pro-slavery, and I call upon the toiling antislavery 
men of the Church to change it. Let us endeavor to reach 
the goal, if we have to change the constitution and the law. 

C. Blakeslee, of Oneida Conference, said : 
I do not believe that slavery has a constitutional existence 
and right in the Church. In opposition to this notion I be- 
lieve and maintain that it is in the Church, not by consti- 
tutional authority and power, but merely from the force of 
necessitating circumstances ; that it is in the Church by tol- 
eration and sufferance, as an evil, condemned and doomed 
to extirpation. Slavery has no place in our constitution; it 
is an incidental evil — an excrescence that may be cast off at 
any time by General Conference enactment without touching 
our constitution. In support of this position I beg leave, sir, 
to adduce a few considerations: 

1. The constitution of the Methodist EpiscojDal Church, 
that is, the " Six Restrictive Rules and the General Rules," do 
not deny the General Conference the power to determine 
whether "slave-holders shall be eligible to membership" in 
the Church ; hence, as it originally had that power, and actu- 
ally exercised it at the time of organizing the Church m 1784, 
it must still have that right. Brethren of the other side will 
not deny that the General Conference had the power to make 
slavery a test of membership prior to tlie adoption of tlie 
constitution in 1808. Then, as there is not a sentence or 
word in her constitution taking from the General Confer- 
ence this power, it now has it in all its original fullness and 
strength. 

2. The constitution nowhere says members ought to hold 
slaves, or that they may hold slaves, or that we are under 
any obligation whatever to hold slaves ; hence, as to positive 
requisition the constitution does not bind us, as a Church, to 
slavery and to slave-holding. 

3. The constitution does not say slave-holders, as such, 
shall have a right in Church ; hence, if they are in the Church 
at all, it is, and must be, by mere tolerance. 

4. The constitution does not forbid the exclusion of slave- 
holders from the Church by the enactments of the General 



280 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

Conference; hence this body may pass a rule making them 
ineligible to membership, without violating the constitution. 

5. It cannot be put into the constitution of the Church by 
construction. A constitution, like a deed or charter, is 
virtually a sealed instrument, and, according to the fixed 
principles of judicial and legal equity and usage, its powers, 
limitations, and requisitions cannot be essentially altered or 
increased by implication. 

6. It is not sanctified and established by our organic law, 
but it is coJKlemned, labeled, and doomed to extirpation by 
the authoritative enactments and declarations of our highest 
legislative body, and judicial tribunal. It is said it has al- 
ways been in the Church, therefore it is there by the power 
of the constitution. 

Against this plea I further urge three objections: 

1. It is an undeniable fact, that slavery is condemned by 
the great principles of civil law — of the common law of na- 
tions; and yet this plea assumes that it is established, main- 
tained, and defended by the constitution of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. It is an outlaw among the nations, but 
a legitimate child of our holy Church constitution. No, sir, 
it cannot be! 

2. inen, if this plea be valid, wicked slave-holding in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church towers above the General Con- 
ference. 

3. Then, if this plea be true and worthy, the whole dark, 
wicked system of slavery outside the Church has a broad, 
open, unobstructed highw^ay into our Church. From the 
bottom of my heart I believe we have power to do all this 
majority report proposes — I believe we have full authority 
and power over slavery in the Church. 

Samuel Y. Monroe, of IS[ew Jersey Conference, 
proposed to narrow tlie discussion to the proposition, 
Have we power to do what the majority report rec- 
ommends, and if we have, ought we to do it ? After 
indorsing Mr. Stevens' constitutional arguments Mr. 
Monroe dwelt with special emphasis on the point, that 
no necessity existed for any such legislation in order 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 281 

to remedy any existing wrong, or to condemn the 
principle of property in man, or to meet the case of 
offenders not now within the reach of existing law. 
Proofs were found, he thought, of the truth of these 
statements, from the testimony of the bretliren of the 
border, from the unanimous sentiment of the Bishops 
in their address, and from the admissions found in 
the rej^ort before them. His conchisions w^ere, that 
loyalty to Christ, loyalty to the Church, and non- 
interference with the political issues of the day, all 
combined to forbid any such legislation as was now 
contemplated. 

Henry E. Pilcher, of Xorth Ohio Conference, took 
the same position, arguing that the new chapter would 
interpose a barrier to the universal extension of the 
Gospel, and is in contravention of the organic law of 
the Church. 

Henry Slicer, of Baltimore Conference, made an 
extended speech, severely criticising the arguments 
and the language employed by various speakers who 
wanted antislavery action. He dwelt with special 
emphasis upon the evil of having a bare majority 
override the constitutional restriction upon such im- 
portant changes. Dr. Thomson's speech was largely 
reviewed. The alleged growth of the slave power 
w^as denied. Mr. Slicer said he did not believe a 
word of it. In 1TS9 twelve thirteenths of all the 
States had slaves in their borders. Instead of free- 
dom going backward, six States of the original thir- 
teen have become free, and in addition we have the 
free States formed from the ^orth-western territory 
out of the soil ceded by Yirginia. The population 
of the United States in 1790 was — whites, 3,172,4:64; 
free colored, 59,446; slaves^ 697,897, or about five 



282 AXTISLAYERY STRUGGLE AND TeIUMPH. 

wliites to one slave, and one free colored to eleven 
slaves. In 1850 — whites, 19,558,068 ; free colored, 
334,495 ; slaves 3,204,313, or about six whites to one 
slave and seven slaves to one free colored. The free 
colored people have increased to nearly half a million, 
and the disproportion of slaves to the white and free 
colored population is greatly increased since 1790. 
Emancipation has progressed from New England to 
the line of Delaware, where the slave poj^ulation is 
sparse and slavery exists in its mildest form. Slavery 
is not destined to be perj^etual in this country. He 
looked forward to the day when freedom should be 
universal, when Christianity will have worked out her 
legitimate results, and the clank of the last chain shall 
be heard, and the last groan of oppressed humanity 
die away. 

After vindicating the fathers, the legislation, and 
the constitution of the Church as it is, Mr. Slicer 
said : " In conclusion, who ask for this change of 
Discipline ? Who, of our 790,000 members ? Have 
one in ten, or one in fifty? Upon examination it 
will be found that the Conferences whose delegates 
ask a change — if all their members did, instead of 
one in ten — are a minority of more than forty thou- 
sand, as compared with the Conferences whose dele- 
gates ask no cliange." 

Dr. George Peck, of Wyoming Conference, reviewed 
the speeches of Dr. Dempster and Dr. Chamberlaine 
adversely, and, for reasons akin to those already re- 
ported at length, opposed all change or new legisla- 
tion on the subject of slavery. The distinctive points 
of his speech were the special importance he attached 
to the fact that there are multitudes of our most pious 
and trustworthy people in Pennsylvania, ISTew Jersey, 



Debate on Slavery — Coxcluded. 283 

and in and about the city of 'New York, who are un- 
compromisingly opposed to any new rule on the sub- 
ject of slavery. They are in close sympathy with the 
border : 

If our brethren there should be disturbed by our action, 
many of the most wealthy, pious, and influential of our mem- 
bers in the localities above referred to will be chafed and 
disaffected — to say nothing more. We have intimations of 
the state of feeling upon this subject in certain influential 
quarters from the remonstrances which have been sent up to 
this General Conference against change in Discipline on the 
subject of slavery. The opinions of the men to whom I have 
referred are well considered and are not likely to be easily 
changed ; and the feelings of such men are not to be trifled 
with. Should they be permanently disaffected, their influence 
is lost to the Church and the Church will lose her power over 
them. 

And in concluding his remarks Dr. Peck opposed 
the whole policy of the report now before the Con- 
ference, because it is regarded by its friends as a mere 
" entering wedge," and not a finality : 

If a hope might be entertained that the ceaseless agitation 
on the subject of slavery would pause somewhere this side of 
the total ruin of the work in the slave-holding States, there 
would be some plausibility in a compromise measure ; indeed, 
almost any change in the law^ wdiich would not absolutely 
expel all slave-holders — if its enactment would set the ques- 
tion finally at rest — would be preferable to the irritations of 
an endless controversy. Our progressive brethren are pre- 
pared to take all they can get, but with the frank avowal that 
they will continue to press on toward the goal of a final sepa- 
ration of all slave-holders from the Church. This is what 
they purpose to accomplish as soon as they can command the 
votes; they will only pause upon intermediate points to take 
breath for a brief period. The present measure, radical as it 
is, is not a finality ; it is not what our reformers ask for and 



28-^: AXTISLAVEKY STRUGGLE AND TmUMPn. 

intend to have; acritatiim will go on, and the war upon our 
Southern border will continue to be pressed with increasing 
vigor, until our brethren there shall either be forced out of 
the Church or compelled to submit to legal enactments which 
are utterly impossible in the slave-holding States. 

Dr. Kaymond, by special vote of the Conference, 
because chairman of the Committee on Slavery, again 
presented the argument for the report, which is re- 
produced here in brief : 

The report before us arranges slave-hohlers into three dis- 
tinct classes: first, the mercenary slave-holder — the man who, 
under civil authority, coerces the obedience of his fellow-man 
for his (the slave-holder's) profit, pleasure, or convenience — 
the man who, for mercenary purposes, restrains the personal 
liberties of another man called his slave. The second class 
are termed innocent slave-holders — men who sustain the legal 
relation of master to slave involuntarily. It is a universally 
recognized principle in ethics, that what is done involuntarily 
has no moral character. It may in itself be beneficial or inju- 
rious; but in its relation to the agent it is morally neither 
good, bad, or indifferent. The agent is not by it rendered 
either blame or praise worthy. The third class contemplated 
by the report is composed of those who voluntarily enter the 
legal relation for benevolent purposes, as when one purchases 
a slave to save him from perpetual bondage — from separation 
from his wife and children and the graves of his fathers; a 
man who, by the payment of $500 or $1,000, secures the con- 
trol of the personal liberties of a slave for his (the slave's) 
benefit, to save that slave from the terrors of banishment 
from home and of cruelty under the lash of distant task-mas- 
ters, performs an act precisely the same in its moral character 
as if he had paid $5 or $10 to purchase clothing for the naked, 
or any other sum to purchase bread for the starving, in pro- 
portion to the amount of his sacrifice. The report thus con- 
templates three classes of slave-holders, not three kinds of 
slave- holding, but three classes of slave-holders, the merce- 
nary, the innocent, and the virtuous. Is this classification 
exhaustive? If there be any others they are not recognized, 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 285 

tliey are utterly unknown, and of course are not included in 
the enumeration. . . . 

Our opponents are of two classes: the first, those who con- 
tend for the Discipline as it is, who will admit no change; 
the second, those who desire some change, but oppose the 
one before us because of its alleged unconstitutionality. The 
position of the first is defined in the Minority Report, now on 
our table, the substance of which might be embodied in the 
following resolution : 

Resolved^ That it is inexpedient for this Conference to legis- 
late on the subject of slavery. 

The issue here is not between this document and another, 
but between something and nothing; the inquiry is not 
whether the doctrines of our report are truthful or erroneous, 
whether its measures are just or unjust, but whether we 
shall do sometliing or do nothing. Were it proposed to sub- 
stitute for the present chapter on slavery in our Book of Dis- 
cipline the stereotyped declaration that "we are as much as 
ever convinced of the great evil of slavery," with our Sav- 
iour's golden rule appended, our brethren on the border, 
and those who sympathize with them, would be bound to 
oppose it for the same reason th;it tliey oppose what is now 
presented, namely, "We want no change, we go for the Dis- 
cipline as it is." "The Discipline as it is," "the Discipline 
as it is," is the l)eginning and the ending of the homily read 
to us by the speakers to whom we now refer. Tlieir real ob- 
jection is not to the character of the thing proposed, but is 
an objection to any change whatever. . . . 

We come now, to consider the constitutional objection. It 
is alleged tliat this report proposes a new term of membership 
not included within the general rules — more specifically it is 
alleged that nou-slaveholding is by the report made a condi- 
tion of meml^ership — that tiie general rules interpreted by 
the facts of history do allow slave-holders in the Church, and 
that, therefore, the report proposes to do by a mere majority 
wiiat the restrictive rules declare shall not be done, except by 
a vote of two thirds of the General Conference and three 
fourths of the members of the several Annual Conferences. 

In reply to this, I beg to read again the extract already 
read twice in the course of these remarks: "The merely legal 



286 Antislayeey SxEroGLE and Triumph. 

relation shall not be considered of itself sufficient to exclude 
a person from the fellowship of the Church." 

I also call attention to the fact that every paragraph in this 
proposed chapter, except the first, contemplates the existence 
of slave-holders in the Church, even among probationers. I 
affirm I am utterly unable to understand the meaning of 
words, if this chapter, either in letter or spirit, in part or in 
whole, gives tlie least possible occasion for the objection that 
it makes absolute non-slaveholding a condition of member- 
ship. It excludes sinful slave-holders, and such only. What, 
then, is the import of this constitutional objection? Evi- 
dently that wicked men are in the Church by its organic 
law — by right, and not by sufferance. This assumption w^e 
most solemnly deny; we can never be persuaded to admit 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church ever, eitlier by consti- 
tutional or statute law, sanctioned the enormity of mercenary 
slave-holding, and since our report is opposed as unconstitu- 
tional, because, as is alleged, it excludes persons having con- 
stitutional rights to membership ; and since it excludes none 
but sinful slave-holders, w^e cannot retire from this report 
without acknowledging the horrible doctrine that the vilest 
of all enormities is sanctioned by the organic law of the 
Church. But if the time ever was when we could have hon- 
orably accepted a substitute to avoid the alleged objection, 
we cannot do it now, since in a speech prepared by one of 
the ablest pens in our Church, pronounced by one of the most 
eloquent tongues among us, listened to with the most pro- 
found attention, with almost a breathless silence — a silence 
maintained by the fall of the chairman's hammer as oft as it 
was disturbed by a rustle in the lobby, since in a speech 
claiming and receiving such high consideration, a speech to 
be circulated through all our borders, East West, Nortli, and 
South; powerful in its logic, beautiful in its rhetoric, rich in 
its historical illustration, elevated in style, and, not the least 
of all, sustained by the authority of its author with his 
twenty years of official antislavery antecedents, it has been so 
unqualifiedly asserted and maintained that the report pro- 
poses what is unconstitutional. Mark it well, Mr. President 
and brethren: that speech, indorsed by the prominence given 
it in its reception, maintains that our report is unconstitu- 



Debate ox Slaveky — Concluded. 2S7 

tional, because it excludes persons having constitutional 
rights to membership. Now, mark again, our report excludes 
none but acknowledged sinful slave-holders. What is the 
seqnitur? Can it be any thing else than that sinful slave- 
holders are in the Church by constitutional rights ? Ask me, 
either by a vote or a refusal, to indorse such a doctrine ! 
The rather take instruments of torture and sever that right 
arm, with a fierce finger pluck that right eye from its socket, 
or bathe a murderous dagger in this beating heart. No, no, 
I would sooner stand alone on the floor of this Conference in 
defense of the position I now maintain, and thus by my pro- 
test leave this an open question for the decisions of future 
time, than yield one moment under circumstances such as now 
press us to the assumption that the Church, which under 
God has been the mother of my salvation, was ever guilty of 
such an enormity as to confer by organic law the right to her 
immunities upon those guilty of " the vilest sin that ever saw 
the sun." 

The doctrine we oppose admitted, and all that has been 
said under the promptings of Southern enmity about the in- 
juries inflicted by us upon the Church South is true; all that 
has been said under tlie promptings of seceding proselytism 
among the Wesleyans of the North, about the corruptions 
and pro-slavery character of our Church, are verily yea and 
amen. Let this General Conference indorse this doctrine, 
and I venture to prophesy a storm will be thereby raised in 
public opinion that will lay the temple of our Zion low in 
irretrievable ruin. 

Mr. President, this bill was put on its passage through this 
house under disabilities inconsistent with the processes of 
impartial legislation : a panic had been excited — a project 
had been discussed in some of our periodicals of introducing 
into the chapter on slavery, by a mere majority vote, an abso- 
lute prohibition; a measure which, us I judge, is not only in 
conflict \\\i\\ our organic law, but wrong in itself, since it 
would make the door of the Church narrower than the gates 
of heaven. This, I doubt not, was in part the occasion of tlie 
suggestion on this subject contained in the Episcopal Ad- 
dress; a suggestion of which I do not complain. By reason 
of these and similar concurrent circumstances, it has come to 



288 Antislayeky Struggle and Triumph. 

be a matter of real history that this persecuted report was 
pronounced unconstitutional before it was written. Threats 
of secession and division have been industriously circulated, 
all, as I believe, without competent autliority, yet not the less 
effectual for want of authority, which have been sufficiently 
terrific to frighten even brave men from their self-possession; 
and, to crown the accumulation of unfortunate circumstances, 
the magnates of the Conference have been opposed to us. 

James Y. Watson, of Michigan Conference, spoke 
in favor of the earliest practicable prohibition of 
holding humanity as property by our Church mem- 
bers. He had not deemed it necessary to change the 
constitution in order to make a prohibitory statute in 
the chapter binding. He would now, howcYcr, favor 
commencing work upon the constitution, although 
his opinion was unchanged as to its necessity. 

Dr. John M'Clintock, of ^ew Jersey Conference, 
expressed a fear that a time "may come, in some fu- 
ture age, when the historian shall give five or six 
lines to an account like the f ollov/ing : ' In the eight- 
eenth and nineteenth centuries there arose men of 
godliness, zeal, energy, who went abroad through the 
length and breadth of every land, proclaiming the 
Gospel of the Son of God, and achieving successes 
beyond all former precedent in the history of religion 
after the apostolic age. , But these men, tliough they 
had zeal enough to gather a great Church, had not 
wisdom enough to guide it.' " 

After an earnest plea against any change, Dr. 
M'Clintock deprecated the tendency of Young Amer- 
ica to set aside the wisdom of the fathers, despise the 
counsels of age, and make light of the teachings of 
experience. He read, as a lesson to the point, from 
the first Book of Kings, twelfth chapter, the account 



Debatj: on Slaveky — Cu^cludki). 2S9 

of Rehoboam and his young friends, whose advice lie 
preferred to the counsel of the old men, and thereljy 
divided Israel. His concluding point was to insist 
tliat the proposed new law was one for which the 
Chnrch was not prepared : 

But is it the part of wisdom and prudence to adopt a meas- 
ure so far in advance of public opinion that it will inevitably 
defeat itself? One point more, and I have done. Do not 
tiie difficulties that have pressed upon all who have attempted 
to frame a new law for our Church on slavery, at this Confer- 
ence and for the four yenrs past, show that the time for 
framing it lias not come? A hirge committee has had the 
sul)ject in hand for weeks; they have turned the subject over 
in every shape; yet the law, as they have framed it, hardly 
satisfies any two men tliat look at it together. One member 
of that committee told me, I think, that he had made fifty 
trials at it without satisfying himself. Is not this, of itself, 
sir, proof that the time li:is not come? When the fit time 
comes there will be no such difficulty. The terms of the 
law will readily be found when the time for the law arrives. 
Law is not made; it grows. 

Dr. D. Yf . Clark, of l^ew York Conference, said 
he deemed the constitution now antislaverj. If 
guilty slave-holders Vv'ere in the Church they were 
there by stealth. It was with these views that the 
New York Conference voted against any change. 
He protested against the doctrine of Mr. Stevens' 
speech. 

F. G. Hibbard, of East Genesee Conference, did 
not like the phraseology of the new rule. He did 
not believe in the right of property in man ; wished 
to vote emphatically against the chattel pi'inciple ; 
hesitated, and yet would give his vote in the afhrma- 
tive on the Majority Report. 

H. H. Fearne, of Wyoming Conference, disclaimed 
19 



290 Antislaveey Stkuggle and Triumph. 

all sympathy for the doctrine that slave-holding was 
recognized in onr organic law. 

The discnssion thus sketched and abridged occu- 
pied the attention of the General Conference almost 
exclusively for a week, and sometimes for two sessions 
daily. All who spoke have not been reported. Ev- 
ery distinctive point made on either side of the ques- 
tion has been carefully looked after and presented. 
Speeches not on the direct line of the argument — or 
those which were mainly criticisms, or those argu- 
ments which, as repetitions, would add nothing to the 
fund of historic knowledge — are omitted. The num- 
ber of speakers on each side was about equal. There 
are more pages occupied with the arguments in favor 
of antislavery action than of those which give the 
opposite side of the question. But the friends of the 
affirmative had necessarily the more extensive field of 
discussion ; and the negative side of the question has 
not been weakened by any important omission. 

The direct vote was taken upon the first resolution 
of the report only, which was, " That we recommend 
the several Annual Conferences so to amend our Gen- 
eral Kule on slavery as to read : ' The buying, selling, 
or holding a human beinoj as a slave.' " In favor 
there were 122 votes ; against it, 96. As it required 
a majority of two thirds, or 149 votes, to adopt it and 
put it upon its passage through tlie Annual Confer- 
ences, Bishop Waugh announced the result by saying : 
" The resolution is not adopted, not having two thirds 
of the votes in its favor." 

The second resolution, which proposed a new sec- 
tion on slavery, had been laid on the table during the 
morning session of May 29. After the vote on the 
first resolution was announced, Dr. Raymond moved 



Debate on Slayeky — Concluded. 20 i 

to take up the second ; which motion was renewed Ijy 
Dr. James Floy the next day, appended to one to 
suspend the order of the day, with a view to offer a 
substitute. 

James Porter, of New England Conference, had 
said, in support of Dr. Raymond's motion, he was in 
faYor of taking up the resolution, not for a direct 
vote, but for a substitute to be offered which he had. 
But if pressed to it — if he must vote for the new sec- 
tion or nothing — he should vote for it. And there 
were fifty others who sympathized with him, he said. 
The matter had been carried too far to be dropped 
here. Let those speeches that have been delivered 
here go out over the length and breadth of the land, 
unaccompanied by any antislavery expression of this 
body, and they will produce results we shall not be 
able to counteract. 

James Floy, in support of his motion. May 30, 
said : 

Difficulties exist in both sections. Brethren must know 
that there is a North. Our border friends overlook the fact 
of pressure, almost unbearable, in other parts of our work. 
This compels us to do something in answer to the question 
about "extirpation." You ask us to be hushed as death, so 
that, on our return, when asked, "What did you do?" we 
shall be obliged to answer, "Nothing at all; only we talked, 
talked, talked!" 

Brethren, we will not be fettered. Would you have us 
hide our heads in shame when asked. What have you done 
for the extirpation of slavery ? Just now there are peculiar 
signs of necessity that something must be done. The shed 
blood of our friends is coming up with strong cries from the 
Territory of Kansas. Horrible outrages are spread upon the 
pages of our daily newspapers. What has set fire to Law- 
rence ? Why is that gem of the prairie, that seeks to be con- 
secrated gloriously to freedom, a heap of moldering ashes ? 



292 Antislaveey Struggle and Triumph. 

The reasons in favor of suspending the reguUir order of the 
day are, first, that some action is needed and expected if we 
would not disappoint the hopes of our people. 

1. It is needed and expected. 

There may be exceptions to this. Let not the brethren 
forget, however, that beyond the border hundreds of thou- 
sands are looking for something to be done here. 

2. Public sentiment every-where demands it, especially 
where it is fanned by the aggressions of slavery. The simple 
question is, On what side is the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
proslavery or antislavery ? 

After other remarks Mr. Floy read the substitute 
he proposed to offer when the report should have 
been taken up. It proposed- to amend the chapter on 
slavery by retaining such parts as ai-e found between 
the quotation marks, and adding what is found in 
brackets : 

1. *'We declare we are as much as ever convinced of the 
great evil of slavery," [ and hereby declare that the general 
rule forbids the traffic in slaves, and is opposed to slave-hold- 
ing for mercenary or selfish purposes.] 

3. "When any traveling preacher," etc., the whole being 
retained as now. 

3. [It is the duty of the Annual Conferences and pastors to 
apply the General Rules in conformity with tliese prin- 
ciples.] 

The motion to suspend the order of the day was 
laid on the table by a vote of 124: to 91. The effect 
of this action, directly or indirectly, was to prevent a 
vote on the new chapter, and also to prevent the 
presentation of any substitute or amendment. Be- 
sides the substitutes of James Porter and of James 
Floy, another was in readiness, of which Dr. E. 
Tliomson says: "Dr. Stevens came to us at that 
General Conference with the following chapter : 



Debate on Slavery — Concluded. 293 

Question : TVhat shall be done for the extinction of 
slavery ? Ansioer : 1. We are as much as ever con- 
vinced of the great evil of slavery. The General 
Rule forbids the traffic in slaves, and in spirit is op- 
230sed to slave-holding for mercenary purposes. 2. It 
is the duty of the pastors of Churches, in their admin- 
istration, to apply the General Rule in accordance 
with these principles." — Christian Advocate, July 4, 
1S61. 

" It was drawn," adds Dr. Thomson, " if we mis- 
take not, by Bishop Simpson,^ and Dr. Stevens de- 
sired that we would offer it as a substitute for the 
pending report on slavery, or, in case that failed, offer 
it as an original motion ; affirming that if we did he 
from the East, and Dr. M'Clintock from the center, 
would support it, and that it might be carried." 

The indirect refusal to take up the report on slav- 
ery, by laying on the table the jDreliminary motion to 
suspend the order of the day, indicated that any 
further action on that subject was not practicable 
during that session of the General Conference. A 
large majority, one hundred and twenty-two, had re- 
corded their names in favor of prohibiting all slave- 
holding by a change of the General Kule with the 
concurring vote of the Annual Conferences. Of this 
number ninety-one were radical Abolitionists, and in 
favor of partial prohibition by direct and immediate 
legislation. Comparing the different votes taken by 
yeas and nays, three classes of voters are recorded — 
the conservatives, the constitutional Abolitionists, and 
the radical Abolitionists. The first class, numbering 
ninety-six, voted against all changes; the second, 
numbering in all thirty-one, to prevent prohibition of 

* This is confirmed by a note from the Eishop, November 22, 1879. 



29-i AXTISLAYEKY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

slave-holding by direct legislation, united with the 
conservatives, and threw the balance of power in 
favor of postponing further action, as before noted. 
Final antislavery action was thus deferred rather than 
defeated. 

The sanguine expectations of the Abolitionists in 
the Church had not been realized. Neither had the 
forebodings of the Border Conferences proved cor- 
rect. No new legislation had been enacted. The 
Eule and the Section on Slavery were not changed; but 
the moral power of a large majority vote was re- 
corded against slavery, and its death warrant was 
sealed. 



Antislaveky Regime. 29^ 



CHAPTEE XXY. 

ANTISLAVEKY REGIME. 

n^IiE debate and the votes on the subject of slavery 
-L at Indianapohs, already noted, were not the 
whole antislavery action of the General Conference 
of 1856. A new administration was inaugurated for 
the publishing and the editorial departments of the 
Church. James Floy, chairman of the Committee on 
the Tract Cause, reported " that the Tract Commiittee, 
having had under consideration the publication of 
antislavery literature, recommend for adoption the 
following resolution : That the Book Agents and the 
Tract Secretary be, and they hereby are, instructed 
to publish in book or tract form such antislavery mat- 
ter as the subject of slavery may demand, including 
Mr. Wesley's ' Thoughts on Slavery.' " 

Efforts were made to leave the matter discretion- 
ary, and not make it obligatory by such positive in- 
struction ; but that proposition was laid on the table, 
on motion of R. S. Rust. An effort to postpone in- 
definitely was defeated ; the motion, by W. L. Harris, 
to take the vote by yeas and nays showing only fifty- 
three in favor of it. Finally the instructions to pub- 
lish antislavery literature prevailed by a very large 
majority. 

During the discussion which preceded this action it 
was stated that three tracts of this class — Wesley's 
"Thoughts" and Dr. Elliott's "Argument on the 
Sinfulness of Slavery " — had been published by the 



296 Antislaveey Struggle and Triumph. 

Tract Secretary, Tlev. A. Stevens, during tlie previous 
quadrenniiiin, which the Executive Committee at 
ISTew York ordered stricken off the list because their 
publication was not authorized by them. Mr. Stevens 
vindicated his action before the General Conference, 
and insisted that " the circumstances of the case and 
the condition of the country required it." By the 
action now taken the possibility of any such conflict 
of jurisdiction was prevented, and the duty of the in- 
coming administration clearly established, which was 
promptly and faithfully attended to by the new secre- 
tary, Eev. James Floy, who was a radical Aboli- 
tionist. 

The changes made in tlie editorial corps by the 
General Conference were the natural result of, and in 
harmony with, the decided antislavery views of the 
majority, yet in no wise prescriptive. Of twelve 
editors chosen for the ensuing four years, six had 
voted with the majority in favor of the new rule pro- 
hibiting all slave-holding. These were the editors of 
the " Christian Advocate and Journal," the Sunday- 
school books, the " I^ational Magazine," the " West- 
ern Christian Advocate," the " Il^orth-western Chris- 
tian Advocate," and the " Northern Advocate." The 
editor of the " Ladies' Eepository," D. W. Clark, did 
not vote with the majority, yet he was fully identified 
with the general antislavery movement. The editor 
of the " Quarterly," D. D. Whedon, was not a mem- 
ber of the Conference, and was not recognized as an 
Abolitionist ; but his manly utterances against slav- 
ery extension had caused his dismissal from a pro- 
fessorship in the Michigan State University. 

The predominance of antislavery sentiment, thus 
indicated, was manifested in every department of the 



Antislavery Regime. 207 

Church during the qiiadrenniiim commencing with 
1856. At this period there were three Methodist 
bodies at the I^orth, moving in separate cohimns, on 
w^ell-defined hnes of action, toward the same objec- 
tive point, against a common enemy — American slav- 
ery. These were the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
the Wesley an Methodist Connection, and the North- 
ern Conferences of the Methodist Protestant Church. 
With each the movement had been the work of years. 
The first two bodies were nearly coetaneous in their 
antislavery labors ; for the organization of the Wes- 
ley ans and the newly-aw^akened antislavery life of the 
old body dated back then over twenty years. The 
Protestants of the ]N^ortli took their initiative step 
November, 1856, and moved into line, fully organ- 
ized, soon after. And, however separate the path of 
their respective movements or however diverse the 
measure of their power, these three Methodist 
Cliurches were now, with accumulated forces, rapidly 
converging to one grand goal, the overthrow of slav- 
ery. 

Two of these bodies, the Wesleyans and the Prot- 
estants, by withdrawing from the majorities antago- 
nistic to their views, had easily secured a constitutional 
prohibition of slavery in their discipline ; while the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, doubtless influenced in 
some measure by their action, and impelled still more 
by sympathy wdth the generous civilization of the age 
and by the benevolence of a common religious faith, 
had marshaled a vast majority of her communion in 
active hostility to slavery. And this numerical 
strength was more' than tenfold greater than the 
united membership of both the other Churches, and 
was rapidly growing in power equal to the task of 



298 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

enacting a constitutional prohibition of slaYciy for a 
Clmrcli of a million communicants. The verdict of 
the General Conference of 1856 was recorded to the 
effect that slavery was a capital offense against hu- 
manity, and worthy of death. The formalities of 
enacting a constitutional provision delayed the execu- 
tion of the sentence. But for the law requiring that 
two thirds should vote in favor of it, such a provision 
would have been upon its passage at once. As it was, 
the vote only lacked twenty-seven of being two thirds 
in a body of two hundred and eighteen. 

Durino^ the interim between the sentence and its 
execution, wliich was deferred for years, there was 
strong opposition to the extirpating blow, and many 
fruitless efforts for a reprieve were made by the pow- 
erful minorit}^ of conservatives, who were probably 
equal in strength to their representatives in the Gen- 
eral Conference, or as ninety-one to one hundred and 
twenty-four. But the new departure was now inau- 
gurated, and, while it was not as radical as the major- 
ity desired it should be, there was no purpose nor 
probability of retracing the steps taken or going back 
upon the antislavery record made at Indianapolis. 

The " Christian Advocate " at 'New York, for four 
years prior to 1856, had been edited by a conservative, 
whose severe personal criticisms upon Abolitionists, 
and vigorous resistance to all proposed General Con- 
ference action against slavery, were adverse to the pre- 
vailing sentiment of the Church, but fully identified, 
in sympathy and sentiment, with the "Border Con- 
ferences" and their conservative friends of the minor- 
ity. His successor in 1856 was regarded by the rad- 
ical Abolitionists as a conservative, because of his 
position and arguments in the General Conference 



Antislayery Regime. 299 

against an exscinding statutory law, wliicli lie opposed 
on the ground that slavery was constitutionally in- 
trenched in the Church, and could only be reached by 
a change of the constitution. Subsequently, for four 
years under the new management, this influential 
journal, although less conservative editorially, w^as 
very far behind any aggressive Church action upon 
the subject of slavery, and pursued a course agreeing 
with the assumption of the editor, " that the limited 
margin of slave-holding territory remaining with the 
Korth was so fully provided with the best pi-actical 
testimony against slavery by the Churches within its 
limits, as to give promise, w4th due prudence of action 
on the part of the I^orth, that the entire field would 
be self-redeemed in a few years." But there was a 
most extensive antislavery discussion allowed in its 
columns, which placed the "Advocate" far in ad- 
vance of its former position on the question of slav- 

The constitutional right of slave-holders to admis- 
sion and membership in the Church, so ably argued 
by Dr. Stevens at Indianapolis, and for a time largely 
accepted by many who were sorry to have it so, was 
more positively and successfully challenged after the 
General Conference adjourned, by several writers, than 
it was even during the debate thereon. A most con- 
clusive argument in support of the 25i'oposition that 
" Constitutionally we have not been a slave-holding 
Church ; that the General Rule did not authorize 
slave-holding ; and that the General Conference was 
competent to pass a simple rule of discipline w^hich 
would exclude all slave-holders," was prepared by 
Professor W. L. Harris, which appeared in the peri- 
odical press first, and afterward was published in 



300 Antislayeky Struggle and TrjuMrii. 

book form. It was entitled " Powers of the General 
Conference." The progress of antislavery sentiment, 
and the increasing probability of a statutory prohibi- 
tion in 1860, was in a great part attributable to the 
influence of the line of argument therein furnished, 
which maintained the following propositions : The 
terms " rules " and " laws " are synonymous ; the 
General Conference has full powers to make rules for 
our Church that do not reYoke or change a General 
Hule ; a statutory rule excluding all slave-holders 
from the Church would not revoke or change any 
General Eule ; the General Eules never did, do not 
now, and never can, contain all the terms of member- 
ship in the Discipline ; there are, and always have 
been, and will always continue to be, terms of mem- 
bership which the General Conference has power to 
change, abolish, or re-enact at pleasure ; if it had 
been the intention to guard the question of slavery by 
constitutional provision, it would have been done 
wdien the Church actually did meet to frame a con- 
stitution in 1808 ; but there is not one word on the 
subject of slavery, nor w^as any attempt made to in- 
troduce any such restriction ; nay, more, such a re- 
striction was deliberately and of design omitted from 
the constitution ; and, therefore, the General Confer- 
ence, possessing full power in the premises, may re- 
fuse to tolerate slavery any longer, and, by enacting a 
statutory rule, exclude all slave-holders from the 
Church. 

The reception given to this view of the question 
very generally may be judged of by the indorsement 
of the editor of the " Methodist Quarterly." He 
said, in reviewing it : " The large share of this argu- 
ment l)y Dr. Harris appeared originally in our Advo- 



Antislavery Eegime. 301 

cates, and its signal ability and apparent conclusive- 
ness attracted general attention. In its present form 
it is one of the ablest constitutional documents that 
has ever appeared in our ecclesiastical history, read- 
ing very much like one of John Marshall's decisions, 
leaving nothing further to be said on either side. 
We trust that every member of the next General 
Conference will give it a thorough consideration. 
In its present unanswered condition it is in great 
danger of settling the opinion of the Church on 
the topic it discusses." — ^''Methodist Quarterly ^'^ 
Ajjril, 1860. 

There were many of the best men of the Church 
who fully believed that, if properly construed, the 
Discipline, without amendment, would exclude all 
slave-holders. Robert Boyd advocated this view in 
1855. James B. Finley argued thus at Indianapolis. 
Dr. Clark, editor of the "Ladies' Ee^^ository," for 
this alleged reason, did not then vote for a change of 
the General Rule. " And the Oregon and California 
Conferences, in 1859, both declined to co-operate in 
any effort to change the General Rule on slavery, 
assigning as a reason that, to their understanding, that 
rule, as it then stood, prohibited all slave-holding." — 
^* Powers of the General Conference^'''' p. 48. 

In every direction, from various centers, through- 
out the entire Church, antislavery influences were 
radiating with accelerating force. The " Sunday- 
School Advocate " had, in some Methodist schools, 
been displaced by the " Juvenile Instructor," from 
the Wesleyan Book Room, at Syracuse, because the 
latter was an antislavery child's paper. But, after 
Daniel Wise became editor, in 1856, the first-named 
paper began to publish "short paragraphs against 



302 AXTISLAVERY STRUGGLE AND TrIUMPH. 

slaveiy and in favor of freedom." This soon called 
forth letters of complaint from the "border," with- 
out changing the course of the editor, who " persisted 
in occasional moderate remarks on the theme." In 
the spring of 1858 Mr. Wise informed the writer 
that he visited two of the Annual Conferences in that 
region. " Several laymen waited " on him, " profess- 
ing very high regard for the ' Sunday-School Advo- 
cate,' but urging" the editor "to promise to desist 
from inserting antislavery remarks, and declaring that 
if he would not, they should feel obliged to exclude 
it from the Sunday-schools." He declined to make 
any such pledge. On the floor of the Conference 
he was questioned on the subject, and similar declara- 
tions of purpose to ostracize the " Sunday-School 
Advocate," were made. His reply was, that " The 
Advocate is expected to teach our children the 
doctrines and ethics of our Church ; that slave-hold- 
ing is a violation of Christian and Methodist ethics ; 
that consequently it is my duty to teach the chil- 
dren to think of it as a sin ; that so long as I am 
editor of the paper I shall firmly, but judiciously, 
so instruct them. If the General Conference shall 
condemn my course, it can, of course, replace mo 
with another editor." 

The scene in that Conference was one of great ex- 
citement. The aifair was largely reported in the news- 
papers. The "Quarterly" for October, 1858, spoke 
of it as "a marked discourtesy to a Oeneral Confer- 
ence officer officially present, followed by an elabo- 
rate effort to withdraw support from the Church 
periodical imder his charge because it persisted in 
inculcating the holy principles of our Church upon 
our children." At another Annual Conference on 



Antislavery Kegime. 303 

the "border," there was an expressed purpose to 
repeat the above scene, but as soon as Mr. Wise had 
conchided his address, Bishop Ames prevented it by 
promptly cutting off replies thereto, and calling very 
decidedly for other business. But, directly after, the 
Churches along the border began stopping that paper 
by hundreds and thousands. The Churches in the 
I^orth and West were appealed to, and the response 
given thereto increased the subscription list scores of 
thousands, but even that did not restore the losses on 
the border. 

The " Methodist Quarterly Keview," when Dr. 
"Whedon became editor, opened its pages to the gen- 
eral discussion of slavery. An appreciative notice of 
Greeley's " History of the Struggle for Slavery Ex- 
tension," Godwin's " Political Essays," and an oration 
by Curtis, in the January " Quarterly" for 1857, was the 
occasion for designating this as " a great and perma- 
nent question," calling forth these " permanent intel- 
lectual efforts," the justification for which was de- 
clared to be " the high and exceptional character of 
the crisis and the momentous question at stake." 

The number for April ensuing furnished an article 
by Rev. A. Stevens, " Slavery : The Times," which 
proposed for discussion " the latest phase of the ques- 
tion, . . . the very noticeable retrogression of public 
sentiment in the South," which was characterized as 
" the great American apostasy." As applied "mostly 
to the farther South, yet nevertheless to the great 
solid mass of the South," Mr. Stevens declared that 
" the public bodies, the political guides, the popular 
press, the leading theologians, stand almost uniformly 
committed to the great apostasy. ... It is certainly 
a startling fact," said he, "that if Washington or 



304 Antislaveky Struggle and Teiumpii. 

Jefferson could reappear to-day, unrecognized but un- 
clianged, in the midst of the South, avowing the 
sentiments they once uttered there, they would be 
swung from the gibbet or die under the lash. . . . 
This is the condition we have reached in the retro- 
gression of the Southern public mind." 

The " Synopsis of the Quarterlies " for April, 1857, 
furnishes, from the editor's pen, seven pages of keen 
analysis of British views of our national affairs, which 
embrace a compact and complete history of the strug- 
gle for freedom against domestic despotism in Amer- 
ica. In conclusion Dr. Whedon adds : " Slavery, 
though in the South, is not the South. It is onl}^ the 
terrible oppressive nightmare upon the South strug- 
gling to extend its catalogue of curses over the ITorth. 
. . . We may call attention to the fact that, in spite 
of the pro-slavery pretenses to the contrary, the sub- 
lime and costly act of emancipation by which England 
abolished slavery in the AVest Indies has been an 
ultimate triumph for freedom and humanity." 

The last j)age of the same number sets forth edi- 
torially what would be the course of the " Quarterly," 
which in all the years following was faithfully pur- 
sued. "We have arrived at a crisis in which firm 
boldness is the true and only conservatism. Pusilla- 
nimity is destructivism. Avoiding any discussion of 
changes of our own Church organism on this point, 
the ' Methodist Quarterly,' as the antislavery organ 
of an antislavery Church, based upon an antislavery 
Disci j)line as it is, will be fearless and free." And 
the ensuing years of the quadrennium j^roduced able 
papers from such corresj^ondents as Dr. Thomson and 
Dr. C. Adams ; besides, the " Editorial Parley " aud 
" Quarterly Book Table " often contained antislavery 



Antislavery Regime. 305 

matter of the most effective cliaracter, immediately 
and ultimately. 

In addition to those journals authorized by the 
Church and edited by the f ppointment of the Gen- 
eral Conference, the " Northern Independent," of 
Auburn, New York, was among the most vigorous 
and uncompromising antislavery papers in the whole 
country. The editor, Rev. William Ilosmer, had 
been the editor of the "Northern Christian Advo- 
cate " for several years. At the General Conferences 
of IS'IS and 1852 no balloting was necessary in his 
case. A hand vote only was sufficient, and that was 
nearly unanimous. But his radical antislavery views 
and his antagonism of the conservative policy were so 
intense, that the hitherto invariable usage of choosing 
the nominee of the patronizing Conferences was re- 
pudiated in his case. A unanimous nomination by 
these w^as overslaughed by the Conservatives gener- 
ally, through whose influence another w^as made 
editor by a small majority. And thus two antislav- 
ery papers were provided for instead of one. 

The chagrin of Mr. Hosmer's friends was only ap- 
peased after their defeat by the organization of a 
board of publication which issued the new independ- 
ent paper of which he was editor during the quad- 
rennium ending with 1860. Although out of his 
rightful position by unfair dealing, he was yet in the 
line of a vigorous prosecution of the antislavery en- 
terprise, which had for its objective point the triumph 
of freedom in the Church and nation. 
20 



306 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEK XXYI. 

GENERAL CONFERENCE OF I860. 

THE conflict between the various parties to the 
discussion about methods of extii-pating slavery 
became intensified after 1856. The attitude of Mr. 
Stevens in the General Conference of that year, and 
the apparent inconsistency, thereby indicated, with for- 
mer deliverances by him as to methods of Church action, 
were severely criticised by Mr. Wise and others, who 
were replied to by him through the " Christian Ad- 
vocate," and also in '' Zion's Herald." They favored 
the prohibition of all slave-holding by statutory legis- 
lation. He antagonized it, and insisted on a change of 
law on slavery by the constitutional proviso, and 
claimed to be consistent with himself and in harmony 
with 'New England Methodists in holding these views. 
Subsequently Dr. E. O. Haven, then editor of 
" Zion's Herald," took issue with Mr. Stevens on the 
constitutional question, and a warm discussion ensued 
in their respective papers. A lengthy adverse review 
of Mr. Stevens' arguments was published by him 
from the pen of Professor W. L. Harris. Dr. Bond's 
opinion that " the General Conference is competent 
to pass a simple rule of discipline which will exclude 
all slave-holders from the Church without respect to 
character and circumstances," was quoted by the one 
party with great satisfaction, and by the other was 
triumphantly offset with the contradictory opinion 
of the doctor's, that, "to supplement them (the rules 



General Conferexce op^ 1860. 307 

on slavery) by a statutory provision on tlie same sub- 
ject, would be as clearly to violate the Constitution 
as to repeal them in part or in whole." Both opin- 
ions were from his editorial writings — the first dated 
July 5, 1855, and the second dated ISTovember 22, of 
the same year, in the '' Christian Advocate." 

For such "a rule of discipline " a host of advocates 
was marshaled in every section of the Church north 
and west of Maryland. They swarmed through the 
press. Solid columns rose to their feet in its favor 
at the Annual Conferences of the last year of the 
quadrennium. And they included many wise and 
reverend men. 

Against any action, other than a constitutional 
change, not a few of the ablest writers of the Church 
were arrayed. But they were earnest in their advo- 
cacy of such a change. The antislavery force had 
these two wings. Both moved with firm and earnest 
steps to the one objective point — the extirpation of 
slavery. 

A few Conferences were op230sed to all antislavery 
action. Some opposed it only because they feared a 
withdrawal of the Churches on the border more than 
they hated slavery. And it was confidently declared, 
by leading conservatives, that neither a change of rules 
or of the chapter could possibly be effected at the 
ensuing General Conference ; and to prevent it the 
utmost exertion was made by them. 

An "Appeal" was addressed to the entire Church 
" Concerning what the next General Conference should 
do on the Question of Slavery, by Abel Stevens." 
It was a 12mo pamphlet of fifty-eight pages, and 
favored doing nothing more than giving a declaration 
of " the sense of the Church on the whole subject," 



308 Antislavery Stktjggle and Teiumph. 

and " a note, put in the margin of the General Kule," 
declaring, "that the only cases of slave-holding ad- 
missible to our communion are such as are consistent 
with the golden rule." The subject-matter of the "Ap- 
peal" was first issued as editorials in the "Advocate." 

A reply to these editorials, by Dr. D. D. Whedon, 
was refused a place in the "Advocate," and therefore 
first appeared in the " Isew York Tribune," and after- 
ward in pamphlet form. The reply indicated that " an 
argument showing its constitutionality can, indeed, be 
made" in favor "of excluding slave-holders from the 
Church by a mere majority vote changing our chap- 
ter." But the writer preferred " the slow but securely 
constitutional process of the two-thirds rule," which 
he advocated with great ability. 

A "Ministers' and Laymen's Union" was formed 
in 1859, at the session of the New York Conference, 
of which Dr. X. Bangs was president, and Dr. J. H. 
Perry was put at the head of the executive commit- 
tee, which, by a circular it issued, projDOsed a canvass 
and auxiliary organizations throughout the Church, 
to effectually protest against the proposed change of 
the rule on slavery, as an unjust measure, and de- 
structive of the unity of the Church. This called 
forth a counter-statement by the Antislavery Society 
of the New York East Conference, from the pen of 
Dr. Curry, in favor of such a change, which covered 
the entire ground of the argument, pro et co?i, with 
marked ability. 

Although the moderate expressions proposed by 
Mr. Stevens, who recognized the necessity for a new 
testimony and definition of the rule against slavery, 
were in the interest of the Churches of the " Border 
Conferences," they met with little favor in that 



Geneeal Conference of 1860. 309 

direction. The younger Dr. Bond, editor of the Bal- 
timore " Christian Advocate," whom the Baltimore 
Conference indorsed unqualifiedly by a unanimous 
vote afterward, said in his columns, December 3, 1859 : 
" The proposition of Dr. Stevens is as objectionable to 
us as the Providence resolutions ; and the passage of 
any such declaration will make it necessary for us to 
consult for the welfare of the Church committed to us. 
. . . The measure he proposes is ' testimony ' to what 
is abundantly testified — ' definition ' of a position al- 
ready rigorously fixed; law without penalty; disci- 
pline without authority ; a sop to Cerberus, and a tub 
to a whale ! " 

Resolutions in favor of a new rule on slavery 
w^ere submitted to the various Annual Conferences 
prior to the General Conference of 1860. They were 
designated by the name of the Conference which orig- 
inated them. The New Hampshire Rule, which pro- 
posed to make the law forbid " the buying or holding 
a human being as property," was not presented to the 
other conferences. The Cincinnati Rule would forbid 
" the buying or selling of men, women, or children, 
or holding them, with an intention to use them as 
slaves." The Providence Rule would have prohib- 
ited " slave-holding, the buying or selling of men, 
women, or children, with an intention to enslave 
them." The Erie Rule would make the law read, 
" the buying, selling, holding, or transferring of any 
human being to be used in slavery." 

The official report of votes cast for and against 
these several propositions in the Annual Conferences, 
as reported at the General Conference of 1S60, at 
Buffalo, New York, was as follows : On the Cincin- 
nati Rule, 319 votes for, 1,212 votes against it ; on 



310 Antislayekt SxiirGGLE AND Tkiiimph. 

the Providence Hule, 1,24:2 votes for, and 1,329 votes 
against it ; on the Erie Hule, 1,Y95 votes for, and 
1,416 votes against it. 

The memorials received on the subject of slavery 
at the General Conference of 1860 were classified by 
the committee to which they were referred as '-those 
asking for the extirpation of slavery from the Chnrch," 
and " those asking that no change be made in the Dis- 
cipline on the subject of slavery." The results were 
summed up by a committee of which C. Kingsley was 
chairman, and Daniel Wise secretary, thus : "Against 
change, from thirty-two Annual Conferences, one 
hundred and thirty-seven memorials, signed by 3,999 
persons, and forty -seven Quarterly -meeting Con- 
ferences. . . . Asking for extirpation, from thirty- 
three Annual Conferences, eight hundred and eleven 
memorials, signed by 45,857 persons, and from forty- 
nine Quarterly-meeting Conferences." 

The Committee on Slavery was composed of thirty- 
two members. A majority and a minority report 
were presented from this committee. The first elab- 
orately argued against the system of slavery, sketched 
the antislavery antecedents of the Church, criticised 
the present Chapter on Slavery, urged a more strin- 
gent and uneqai vocal rule, and closed with recom- 
mending : First, " The amendment of the General 
Rule on Slavery so that it shall read, ' The buying, 
selling, or holding of men, women, or children with 
an intention to enslave them.' " Second, " The sus- 
pension of the fourth Restrictive Rule for the pur- 
pose set forth in the foregoing resolution." Third, 
" That the following be, and hereby is, substituted in 
the place of the present seventh chapter on Slavery : 
* Question. AVhat shall be done for the extirpation of 



General Conference of 1860. 311 

the evil of slavery ? A7iswer\ We declare that we are 
as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery 
We believe that the buying, selling, or holding of hu- 
man beings as chattels is contrary to the Islws, of God 
and nature, and inconsistent with the golden rule, 
and with that rule in our Discipline which requires 
all who desire to continue among us to "do no harm," 
and to " avoid evil of every kind." We therefore 
affectionately admonish all our preachers and people 
to keep themselves pure from this great evil, and 
to seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian 
means.' " This report was signed by C. Kingsley, 
Chairman — who had prepared it — and by B. F. Crary, 
Secretary. The "New-Chapter" section of the report 
was formulated by Daniel Wise, as he told the writer. 
The minority report made no plea for the system 
of slavery, but affirmed " that slave-holding for mer- 
cenary and selfish purposes is wrong." It gave a 
history of the action of the Church from ISlr-l on- 
ward, tracing the origin of the renewed antislavery 
agitation, which w^as attributed to the ministers of the 
Northern Conferences mainly, who made "a first offi- 
cial effort to change the Discipline" at the General 
Conference of 1856, "without the support of the 
membership ; " as " out of seven hundred and ninety 
thousand members not quite five thousand petitioned 
for a change, and most of these were obtained by the 
personal efforts of the preachers." And it, moreover, 
urged that the whole number of petitioners in 186'^ 
was "less than one in twenty of the entire member- 
ship." This fact, the want of proper consideration, 
the best interests of the enslaved, the division and 
strife inevitable, and the embarrassment to the " Bor- 
der Conferences " consequent upon any change of the 



312 Antislaveey Struggle and Tkiumph. 

Discipline, were among the reasons alleged for recom- 
mending only a reiteration of the old testimony 
against slavery, and "that the Committee on the 
Pastoral Address be instructed to state our position in 
relation to slavery, and to give snch counsel to our 
CI lurches as may be suited to the necessities of the 
case." This report was signed, John S. Porter, chair- 
man ; P. Coomb, secretary. 

An interesting and exhaustive debate on the sub- 
ject matter thus brought forward was participated in 
by the leading members of the body, and was con- 
tinued several days. In favor of the majority report 
elaborate speeches were made by Granville Moody, 
E. O. Haven, Dr. Edward Thomson, B. F. Crary, 
P. S. Bennett, E. M. Hatfield, H. M. Schaffer, Dr. 
Dempster, Prof. C. Kingsley, James Hill, and others. 
In favor of the minority report the most j)rominent 
speakers were P. Coomb, ^N". Wilson, T. C. Murphy, 
A. Griffith, J. L. Crane, of Illinois; G. Battelle, S. Y. 
Monroe, H. Sheer, Thomas Sewall, Dr. Holdich, and 
Dr. Durbin, with others. The extended report of the 
discussion in 1856 obviates the necessity for giving 
this debate in detail ; for the entire argument, pro 
and G07i^ is given in the twenty-second, twenty-third, 
and twenty-fourth chapters of this volume. 

The new rule had in its favor 138 votes, with Y4r 
opposed to it, which was less than the two-thirds ma- 
jority that the Discipline required to put it on its 
final passage at the ensuing Annual Conferences. 
When the new chapter was taken up for discussion a 
proposition was made to refer it to the Annual and 
Quarterly Conferences for approval. This was lost 
by a vote of Gl to 150. A motion was made by 
S. Y. Monroe, in behalf of himself and nineteen 



General Confeeence of 1860. 313 

others, to adopt the language of the new chapter in 
the form of a resolution, to be entered on the Journal 
and inserted in the Pastoral Address, and not to be 
made a part of the Book of Discipline. Every 
delegate save one of the Philadelphia Conference 
voted in favor of the adoption of this resolution. 
The delegates from the two Baltimore Conferences, 
with one exception, recorded their names in favor of 
it. So did the member from Arkansas, both the rep- 
resentatives of the Kentucky Conference, both of 
the Missourians, and all three of the delegates from 
the Western Virginia Conference. — " General Con- 
ference Journal^^ 1860, p. 256. 

" These are the Border Conferences, so called. 
Twenty - seven out of twenty - nine delegates from 
these Conferences said, ' The holding of human beings 
to be used as chattels is inconsistent with the golden 
rule, and with that rule in our Discij^line which re- 
quires all who desire to continue among us " to do no 
harm," and to avoid evil of every kind.' Out of two 
hundred and twenty-one members who composed the 
General Conference only two voted against the dec- 
laration itself. All but two, apparently, believed it, 
and wanted to say so somewhere." — " Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal^'' July 26, 1860. But saying so 
in this form was voted down by 81 to 132. Another 
mode was preferred. On the direct vote for adopt- 
ing the new chapter there were 155 yeas to 58 nays. 
Subsequently a proposition was made, on motion of 
G. Hildt and T. B. Sargent, to declare " that this sec- 
tion is understood and meant to be only advisory," 
which was tabled by a vote of 73 to 131. 

In tlie parliamentary tactics pursued, the minority 
chose to adopt and promulgate informally the exact 



oli AntisLxVveky Struggle and Triumph. 

sentiment of the majority on the character of slavery 
and in favor of its extirpation. Dr. T. J. Thompson, 
of tlie Philadelphia Conference, subsequently ex- 
plained that " the border delegates voted for the sub- 
stitute of Mr. Monroe as less offensive than putting 
the words in the Discipline." — " Christian Advocate 
and Jo'uvnal^^ August 9, 1860. But no one of them 
disclaimed the sentiment expressed on the subject of 
slavery. 

The day following these several votes, on motion of 
T. A. Blades and R. Sapp, the General Conference, 
by a vote of 175 to 6, declared that : 

Wliereas^ During tlie pending of the chapter on slavery the 
following amendment was offered as explanatory of the 
chapter: . . . Provicled, that this section is understood to 
be only advisory; . . . 

Resolved^ That the said amendment was rejected by this 
body because we regard the chapter itself so clearly declara- 
tive and advisory as not to require any such explanation. 

Thirty-nine were absent or did not vote. 

The Pastoral Address of 1860, which was signed 
by J. P. Durbin, F. G. Hibbard, E. Thomson, M. 
Paymond, W. Hunter, H. W. Reed, and Josej)h 
Brooks, " in behalf and with the approbation of the 
General Conference," summed up the action of the 
Church to date in the following paragraph : 

9. Tlie subject of slavery, as related to the Church, has oc- 
cupied her earnest attention for a hundred years, and her 
history on this question shows the difficulty and delicacy of 
the matter. Her testimony has been uniformly against it as a 
system, and yet slie has tolerated tlie legal relation where cir- 
cumstances have justified toleration. In the course of half a 
century some doubts have arisen as to the true intent and 
meaning of the Discipline on this subject, and to set this 



General Conference of 18G0. 315 

matter at rest this General Conference has judged it proper 
to reconstruct the seventh chapter of the Discipline on the 
subject of slavery, so that it shall he a clear declaration of 
principles of the Church touching this matter; and to add an 
affectionate admonition to all our •' preachers and people to 
keep themselves pure from this great evil, and to seek its ex- 
tirpation by all lawful and Christian means." Thus the Gen- 
eral Conference has expressed its judgment by a declaration 
of principles, and given its godly advice as to the application 
of these principles by those who may in any way be impli- 
cated in this matter, whether as pastors or people; pointing 
out, in its advice, that in the application of the principles 
due regard be had to the laws of the States and our duty 
founded in Christian morals. We sincerely trust that this 
well-considered action on this vexed question will be accepted 
by the Church, and that peace and quiet may hereafter reign 
throughout all our borders. 

"VYliile the adoption of this Address was under con- 
sideration, Mr. J. H. Twoniblj, of 'New England, 
wished to call attention to one or two expressions in 
the Address which he did not like. " In one place 
something is said about the extirpation of slavery, 
and then in another place there is a qualifying phrase 
thrown in, as though we were afraid we would do too 
much." He did not think there was the least danger 
of doing too much, as all past history will show ; but 
the danger, if any, was that we should do too little." 
He said : 

In another place in the Address there is the expression of a 
hope that this question of slavery is now settled, and that the 
Church will accept that settlement; but I have no such hope. 
I do not like that expression, and I wisli it had never been 
put there, for this is a thing that never can be settled or com- 
promised wdiile slavery exists. I, therefore, move that so 
much of the Address as lias reference to a hope that the 
question is settled, etc., be stricken out. 



316 Antislayeey Struggle and Triumph. 

Dr. Ilibbard understood it to mean simply this : 
After having carefullj and candidly considered the 
whole matter here, we have come to this conclusion, 
and for this time have settled the question ; and now 
we hope the Church will accept it, and that we shall 
have peace. We offer no pledge of silence for the 
future. 

Dr. Harris asked if the word " action " might not 
be put in the place of the word " settlefnent ;" and by 
common consent it was inserted, as the Address now 
reads. (" Daily Christian Advocate," June 5, 1860.) 

This was the final disposition of " this vexed ques- 
tion" at that General Conference ; and it was authori- 
tatively designated as a reconstruction of the seventh 
chapter — a clear declaration of principles, an affec- 
tionate admonition, clearly declarative and advisory. 
The opinion expressed that slavery was condemned by 
God, by nature, by the golden rule, and by the Meth- 
odist Discipline, was clear and unequivocal, and it 
could only be consistently followed by adding, " We, 
therefore, wdll not allow our people to practice it." 
This, however, was not done. They were advised, 
and they were admonished, but they were not com- 
manded to keep "themselves pure from this great 
evil." 

The new rule, which was very near being successful, 
did propose to command the preachers and people not 
to buy, sell, or hold men, women, or children, with 
an intention to enslave them. And the vote on this 
rule was tlie exact measure of the actual antislavery 
power of the General Conference of 1860. If all the 
delegates who were elected as friends of the new 
rule had been true to their constituents and their own 
avowed principles before their election, the power of 



General Conference of 1800. 317 

that General Conference would have been equal to 
the enactment of that law within the year ensuing. 
For this fact, touching personal default, tlie knowl- 
edge of not a few of its members is the voucher, by- 
some of whom this statement was made to the writer. 
It is not the fault of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
that a prohibitory law was not formally enacted prior 
to the civil war. That was the standard of her anti- 
slavery action, as seen in the votes of the Annual 
Conferences during the quadrennium of 1856-1860. 
And it is a palpable error that is perpetrated by many 
careless journalists when they say the Methodist 
Episcopal Church waited for the civil government to 
destroy slavery by proclamation before it dared to 
prohibit slave-holding by its own legislation. Yet, 
that Church, by the vote of more than three fifths, if 
not even in excess of two thirds of its representatives 
in Annual Conferences assembled, had declared for 
the prohibition of all slave-holding before the inau- 
guration of President Lincoln. Of forty-seven Con- 
ferences, (see " Journal of General Conference," 1860, 
p. 434,) tliirty-one are rej)orted as giving 2,648 votes 
in the affirmative. Sixteen Conferences are reported 
as furnishing only 1,212 votes against the form of 
prohibition proposed by the Cincinnati Kule. The 
highest number of negative votes is 1,416, which 
were given against the Erie Rule. But the affirma- 
tive votes of the New England and the Genesee 
Conferences, which are omitted, if counted in, would 
leave this largest negative vote in a minority of less 
than one third. As the affirmative votes were not all 
given for one rule they were not reckoned a legal 
majority, although the aggregate is unquestionably 
equal to two thirds, if morally estimated. 



318 Antislayery Steuggle and Triumph. 

The periodicals of the Church were supplied with 
antislaYerj editors for the four years following from 
1860. An effort was made by the conservative mem- 
bers of the General Conference at Buffalo to displace 
Daniel Wise, whose radical sentiments on slavery 
were obnoxious to them ; but it failed. A large ma- 
jority sustained him for the editorship of the " Sun- 
day-School Advocate " and Sunday-school books. Dr. 
Stevens, the editor of the " Christian Advocate," was 
sustained by the conservatives, although he publicly 
declined being a candidate, but he was succeeded by 
Dr. Edward Thomson, who ^\^s elected by nearly a 
two-thirds vote. Dr. Whedon, whose election as 
editor of the '' Quarterly " in 1856 was only by a 
small majority, was re-elected by a unanimous hand 
vote. The vigorous antislavery character of the Con- 
ference was thus fully vindicated, and assurance given 
of a forward movement all along the line. There- 
after the Methodist press was a unit on that subject. 

The conservative character of the " Advocate " at 
'New York was changed to that of a decided, yet 
prudent, representative of the progressive antislavery 
sentiment of the Church. The distinguished ability 
and superior culture of Dr. Thomson eminently fitted 
him to meet the crisis in the nation and in the 
Church that was now rapidly approaching. 

The adjournment of the General Conference found 
the conservatives unchecked in their hopes of control- 
ling the action of the Church. A new weekly was 
established in ISTew York devoted to their interests, 
w^iich obtained extensive j^atronage, especially in the 
Border Conferences. A very extensive feeling of 
disaffection was developed. The course of the great 
official paper at New York was unsparingly criticised. 



General Conference of 18G0. 319 

Soon after the Conference of 1860 a portion of tlie 
*' border " assumed a revolutionary attitude. The 
new statute was repudiated by two Conferences. 
One demanded its repeal with a threat of separation. 

The testimony against slavery which the new chap- 
ter gave was clear and strong. The vote in favor of 
the new rule, that was so near becoming a law against 
all slave-holding, was a staggering blow to the whole 
system. And this was all done, notwithstanding tlie 
peril to the unity of the Church on the border, as 
indicated by Conference action and otherwise prior 
to the General Conference of 1860. The Baltimore 
Conference, held in March of that year, by a unani- 
mous vote, "determined not to hold connection with 
any ecclesiastical body that makes non-slaveholding a 
condition of membership in the Church." 

Pursuant to this purpose, yet not in the direct line 
of consummation, at a preachers' meeting held Sep- 
tember 14, 1860, in Wesley Chapel, Washington, a 
formal complaint was made against the action of the 
General Conference of 1860 on the subject of slavery, 
and a plan was proposed for developing and concen- 
trating the conservative element of the whole Church 
at the next General Conference for a redress of their 
grievances. The plan included " the repudiation of 
the new chapter," and demanded that " the control of 
this question be left Vvdth the Annual Conferences." 
(" Christian Advocate and Journal," Sept. 27, 1860.) 

In accord with this action of the preachers' meet- 
ing, a convention of laymen from within the bounds 
of the Baltimore, East Baltimore, Philadelphia, and 
West Yirginia Conferences was held in Baltimore, at 
the Eutaw-street Church, December 5, 1860. A del- 
egation was present from 'New York on the evening 



320 Antislayery Struggle and Triumph. 

of the 6th. An address to tlie Conferences named 
was adopted, calling upon them to sever their con- 
nection with the General Conference. Mr. Fowler 
presented a minority report opposed to immediate 
secession. The attendance upon the convention was 
mainly from within the bounds of the Baltimore 
Conference. Of its one hundred and sixteen charges, 
sixty-three were represented. 

Respondent to these movements and in sympathy 
with concerted and contingent separation, "A Card 
to Methodists " was circulated in the peninsular part 
of the Philadelphia Conference, suggesting methods 
of action, which would enable the peninsula to "ne- 
gotiate with the Baltimore and other Border Confer- 
ences in reference to any further action." At the 
Baltimore Conference for 1861 an earnest discussion 
was had, looking toward secession, but not reaching 
an}^ final conclusion. A candidate for elders' orders 
publicly excepted to the new chapter. For this rea- 
son the president, Bishop Scott, said : "I regard 
myself restrained from ordaining any one who declines 
to take upon him the ordination vows without quali- 
fication or excejDtion. Hence, I cannot ordain Mr. 
Hedrick." 

A convention of laymen was in session at the same 
time and place with the Baltimore Conference. By 
a large vote, 91 to 32, the convention adopted a series 
of resolutions which were recommended to the Con- 
ference for adoption. They embraced a declaration 
that the unconstitutional action of the General Con- 
ference had destroyed the unity of the Church, and 
that the Baltimore Conference does not recognize its 
jurisdiction ; that, nevertheless, if three fourths of all 
the Annual Conferences would, within the year 1861, 



General Conference of 18G0. 321 

agree witli it in abrogating the new cliapter, and in 
ignoring the whole subject of slavery in the Disci- 
pline, the Baltimore Conference would reunite with 
them in Church fellowship. When, however, this, 
or a similar plan, was presented to the Conference, 
Bishop Scott announced that he could not entertain 
a motion contemplating a division of the Church. 
He subsequently allowed the secretary, Rev. J. S. 
Martin, to put the question on the adoption of a 
series of propositions, in substance already indicated. 
When the Bishop resumed the chair, he ordered that 
the following paper be immediately spread upon the 
Journal : 

The whole action just had on what is called the "Norval 
Wilson propositions" is, in my judgment, in violation of the 
order and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
therefore is null and void, regarded as Conference action. I, 
therefore, do not recognize such action as infracting the 
integrity of this body, and so I shall proceed to finish the 
business of the present session. Levi Scott. 

The official record shows that the whole number of 
members was one hundred and seventy-one. Eighty- 
three voted for the resolution which declared for im- 
mediate separation ; thirty-nine were absent ; two 
voted nay. As the whole number present was one 
hundred and thirty-two, the majority was two thirds 
in the affirmative, whose irregular action was made of 
no effect by episcopal decision. 

The East Baltimore Conference for 1861 adopted ^ 
a series of resolutions which demanded the repeal of 
the new chapter, declared there could be no adminis- 
tration under it, and asked the concurrence of all the 

* Rescinded in 1864. 
21 



322 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

Annual Conferences in a proposition instead, which 
should give each Conference full power over slavery 
within its bounds. This proposition was concurred 
in * by the Philadelphia Conference of the same year 
by a vote of 1Y4 to 35. But the bolder action of the 
Baltimore Conference was not concurred in by any of 
the Conferences. Such was the situation immedi- 
ately following and consequent upon the doings of 
the General Conference of 1860. 

* Rescinded in 1864. 



The End — Slaveky Vanquished. 323 



CHAPTEE XXYII. 

THE "EWD SLAVEKY VANQUISHED. 

^T^HE end of all controversy on slavery drew nigh. 
-^ In vain were all the great swelling words of un- 
principled politicians uttered for slavery. In vain 
had timid ecclesiastics bated their breath and spoken 
in w^hisper tones of slavery. In vain were all the 
considerate and conservative opinions and measures 
of religious bodies, which contemplated the possible 
extinction of slavery by voluntary emancipation, or 
by inevitable exhaustion, or by miraculous interven- 
tion of divine Pro^ddence ! 

The quadrennium following 1860, however, opened 
with every indication of a continuation of the strife 
of words about methods of extirpation, forms of con- 
demnation, and lines of discrimination, of slavery. 
The conservati\^e party in the General Conference at 
Buffalo prompt!}^ establislied a weekly paper in Kew 
York, " The Methodist," which was liberally endowed 
and ably edited. It antagonized the radical views 
and radical policy now in the ascendant. Unfortu- 
nately, this antagonism lessened the patronage of the 
^' Christian Advocate and Journal," causing tempo- 
rary financial loss to the Book Concern, alienated per- 
sonal friendships between prominent ministers and 
laymen, promoted discord among brethren, and in 
no wise tended to harmonize the disturbed elements 
by which a desolating division of the Church was again 
threatened all along and somewhat above the border. 



324: Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

Meanwhile slavery flourislied, grew fat and furious, 
was more hateful and murderous. It resented the 
mildest admonition with deadly blows. The martyr- 
dom of Anthony Bewley is in point. A letter from 
Bishop) Morris was published in the " Western Advo- 
cate" in ]^ovember, 1860, relating to it. He was a 
member of the General Conference of 1860 from the 
Arkansas Conference — over sixty years of age, small 
of stature, apparently feeble — a good man, of a meek 
and quiet sjDirit, and for thirty years had enjoyed 
the full confidence and fellowship of his brethren. 
Falsely charged with a plan of insurrection to make 
him odious, he left Texas to avoid trouble to himself 
or others ; his enemies pursued him to Missouri and 
Arkansas, and brought him back by mob violence, 
and without legal process hung him near Fort Worth, 
September 13, 1860.^ His real offense was that he 
had refused to be identified with the Church South 
in 1845, and did unite with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in 1848, and thereby became obnoxious to 
Missouri and Texas slave-holders, whose prejudices 
and passions were equally unreasonable and lawless. 

Events of unusual interest and alarming indications 
were crowded into the days now passing. The attack 
of John Brown on Harper's Ferry, October 14, 1859, 
his capture, and his conviction on the 2d of J^ovember, 
" for murder and other crimes," and his execution on 

* The "Central Christian Advocate," in October, 1862, relates that 
Colonel Chivington, of the First Colorado Volunteers, (late presiding 
elder of the Rocky Mountain District,) in pursuing the rebel " Texan 
Rangers," whom he routed and pursued thc^ugh New Mexico four 
hundred miles, overtook a gang of twelve, five of whom his men killed, 
wounding and capturing the other seven. Prisoners already in his 
hands informed the colonel that those twelve were all present and 
took part in the murder of Bewley at Fort Worth, Texas, 



The End — Slavery Yanquished. 325 

the 2cl day of December following, had profoundly 
stirred the nation ; and the excitement at the I^ortli 
was hardly less than it was at the South. The Dem- 
ocratic party sought in vain to fix the responsibility 
of John Brown's invasion of slave territory upon 
the growing Kepublican party, whose leaders made 
almost frantic efforts to free themselves from the 
unjust and damaging suspicion, and with complete 
success. 

For a year or more radical Abolitionists were very 
unpopular, and the meetings of the American Anti- 
slavery Society were disturbed by outbreaks of violent 
opposition in Boston, Buffalo, Kochester, and Syra- 
cuse, in which members of the dominant political 
party were active agents, while their Republican 
antagonists avoided even the responsibility of pro- 
tecting Abolitionists in their constitutional rights in 
E"orthern cities. At Syracuse, January 29, 1861, the 
Abolitionists w^ere forcibly ejected from their own 
hired hall by a mob, which on the following night 
crowded the streets with a torch -light procession and 
transparent banners with inscriptions such as : " Free- 
dom of speech, but not treason ;" " The rights of the 
South must be protected ;" " Abolitionism no longer 
in Syracuse ;" and bearing effigies of leading Ab- 
olitionists. The latter, amid hootings, mingled 
with disgusting profanity and ribaldry, were burned 
up in Hanover Square. (" Eecollections," S. J. 
May, p. 391.) 

Below the troubled surface of society, and away 
from the persecuted and the persecutors, stood quiet, 
thoughtful, earnest men by thousands, pondering in 
their hearts the ominous movements and words of 
John Brown. Governor Wise said : " He is a man 



326 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

of clear head, courageous fortitude, and simple ingen- 
ousness. He is cool, collected, indomitable, and he 
inspires all with great trust in his integrity, and as a 
man of truth. They are mistaken who take him for 
a madman." And, therefore, Vice-President "Wilson 
said also, that " his simple and unstudied words, re- 
vealing such sublime devotion to principle, such pro- 
found sympathy for the poor, lowly, and oppressed," 
such serene trust in God, were seized upon and 
hoarded almost as gems from another and better land, 
or as the echoes from the heroic age of confessors 
and martyrs. His port and bearing, his interviews 
with "Wise, Mason, Yallandigham, and others, and 
his remarks before sentence was passed, produced a 
profound impression. '' Your people at the South," 
he said, " had better prej)are yourselves for a settle- 
ment of this question, which will come up sooner 
than you are prepared for it. ... I came to free the 
slaves, and only that." — "-Eise and Fall of the Slave 
Power J'' Henry Wilson, vol. ii, pp. 595, 596. 

And although John Brown's body had lain mold- 
ering in the grave then more than a year, his soul 
went marching through the land. In less than a 
twelvemonth after the Syracuse jubilee over the 
suppression of abolitionism, the John Brown song — • 
extemporized in Boston harbor — 'Was heard ringing 
through the valleys of Virginia and along the banks 
of the Potomac. 

Slavery had now reached a period of convulsions 
which were less ecclesiastical than political. As seen 
from a subsequent stand-point, they were premonitory 
and prophetic signs of approaching dissolution. The 
day of doom drew nigh. The hanging of Brown and 
the murder of Bewley were venial sins in comparison 



The End — Slavery Vanquished. 327 

with tlie fratricidal, wholesale murder that was coolly 
inaugurated by perjured traitors, when, with fraud 
and robbery, the political leaders of the South seized 
the arms of the country and opened a deadly lire 
upon the national heart and life. 

The fearful struggle which ensued involved mill- 
ions of men and the outlay of thousands of milHons 
of dollars, besides the loss of hundreds of thousands 
of lives. In the years of bloody strife following, our 
country entered as never before into " the distress 
of nations with perplexity." Around and beyond 
" the sea and the waves roared " dismally. Literally, 
men's hearts failed them for fear, and for " looking 
after those things which [seemed] coming on the 
earth." And yet other men feared not. ''In God 
is our trust," they said. Blood was poured out as 
water in the field. Wealth was ungrudgingly devoted 
to the government. Loved ones from thousands of 
homes were forwarded with benedictions and tears 
to the camp and fields of battle. These were times 
that tried men's souls, when they resisted unto blood, 
striving against the sin of a pro-slavery rebellion. 
Then it was that the entire antislavery sentiment of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, conservative and 
radical, combined its full power to condemn and de- 
stroy slavery by rallying around the national standard 
heartily. A few Conferences are cited only. Their 
action is a samj)le of the many. 

The 'New York East Conference, in April, 18G1, on 
motion of Rev. J. S. Inskip, adopted, unanimously, 
expressions of unqualified sympathy with and support 
of the government of the United States in its defense 
and support of the Constitution and the nation's wel- 
fare. 



328 Antisl AVERY Struggle and Triumph. 

The New York Conference, also, in June of the 
same year, adopted, by a nnanimons vote, Rev. J. B. 
Wakeley's report on the state of the country, which 
recited " the formation of the Southern Confeder- 
acy ; ... its seizure of the forts, mints, custom-houses, 
vessels, and arms of the United States, . . . and unnat- 
ural war against the government," as the occasion for 
declaring that " no treasure is too costly, no sacrifice 
too great, no time too long, to put down treason and 
traitors, and to place our Union on a rock so solid 
that neither enemies abroad nor traitors at home can 
move it." 

The East Baltimore Conference, in March of 1862, 
on the motion of A. A. Reese and G. D. Chenoweth, 
expressed their "abhorrence of the rebellion," and 
said, " We approve and indorse the present wise and 
patriotic administration;" affirming, also, that "in 
the inculcation of loyal principles and sentiments we 
recognize the pulpit and the press as legitimate in- 
strumentalities." The vote stood 132 yeas, 15 nays ; 
the negative voters declaring themselves as much in 
favor of the Union as the others could be. 

The Philadelphia Conference, in March of the same 
year, adopted, by a unanimous vote, the unanimous 
report of their committee on the state of the country — 
Charles Cook, chairman — which declared that " we do 
hereby express our utter abhorrence and opposition 
to the present rebellion, being the offspring of trea- 
son; . . . and that we pledge our influence to en- 
courage and assist the army and navy, to protect the 
honor of our flag, the integrity of the Constitution, 
and the maintenance of our glorious Union." 

The New Jersey Conference of the same year, with 
entire unanimity, adopted an equally patriotic report 



The End — Slavery Yanquished. 329 

from its committee — Isaac Winner, chairman — which 
hailed " with gratification the enthnsiastic loyalty of 
onr congregations ; " also calling upon the nation " to 
humble itself before God for its many and grievous 
sins." 

Without a dissenting vote the New York East 
Conference, in 1862, adopted a report, prepared by 
James Floy, declaring that " the system of American 
slavery is evidently, in the good providence of God, 
destined soon to come to an end," and " that the re- 
cent action of our national authorities by which the 
nation has been unequivocally committed to the 
cause of freedom, meets with our entire approba- 
tion." ^ And this Conference, with the ISTew York 
Conference, also, of 1864, memorialized Congress in 
favor of an amendment to the Constitution which 
should abolish slavery, twenty-one months before it 
was achieved. The New England Conference for 
the same year adopted a report which deserves a 
larger space, because of its historic statements, as well 
as its loyal sentiments : 

After thirty years of exciting, but healthful, agitation on 
the subject of slavery, the present aspects of our cause fur- 
nish abundant motive for devout thanksgiving to God. The 
two antagonistic tendencies of public sentiment, existing and 
increasing in the nation for so many years, have at length 
reached their legitimate crisis of mutual and final conflict, of 
which the issue cannot be doubtful. By its own diabolical 
act [slavery] has been placed in a position where it can 
claim no constitutional protection, and where there is no 

* The bill freeing slaves used for insurrectionary purposes was ap- 
proved August 6, 1861. Another bill forbidding the return of fugi- 
tive slaves by persons in the army was approved March 13, 1862. 
Slavery iu the District of Columbia was abolished by Congress April 
16, 1862. 



330 Antislayeey Struggle and Triumph. 

prudential motive for its retention; and the voice of the peo- 
ple, which evidently coincides with the voice of God, says, 
*'Letit perish!" 

In the Church the progress of the antislavery sentiment has 
been equally gratifying. Instead of a contemned and meager 
minority which regarded slavery as a sin, a great majority of 
the representative assembly of the Church register their sol- 
emn verdict of its criminal character, and demand that it 
shall cease, not only in the ministry, but in the whole mem- 
bership. 

The Black River Conference of 1862 gave a more 
extended statement of equally important historic 
truths, and put upon record its judgment that " the 
signs of the times give evidence that the hitherto 
dominant and domineering slave-power is rapidly ap- 
proaching its end, and even now we may witness its 
horrible death throe. The time is rapidly approach- 
ing when the last fetter will be broken and the last 
bondman be released." 

The Central Ohio Conference has the distinguished 
honor of having adopted resolutions in 1861 contem- 
plating the proclamation of universal freedom as the 
only solution of the national difficulties. And in 
1862, at Greenville, Ohio, September 22, the Confer- 
ence, by a unanimous vote, adopted a resolution, 
which was forwarded to President Lincoln, declaring 
" that we believe the time has fully come that, from 
a military necessity, for the safety of the country, 
such a proclamation should be made; and we ear- 
nestly beseech the President of the United States to 
proclaim the emancipation of all slaves held in the 
United States, paying loyal men a reasonable compen- 
sation for their slaves." — " Christian Advocate^'' Oct. 
9, 1862. 

Before this communication reached Washington 



The End — Slavery Yanquisiied. 331 

the President had already issued his procLamation of 
freedom, dated September 22, 1862, which was to 
go into operation one hundred days thereafter, on 
the first day of January, 1863. 

Freedom was not, however, universally secured by 
the proclamation, which only emancipated "all per- 
sons held as slaves within any State, or any designated 
part of a State, the people whereof shall be in rebel- 
lion against the United States on the first day of Jan- 
uary, 1863." This qualification was specifically car- 
ried out by naming " the States of Arkansas, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
South Carolina, I^orth Carolina, and Yirginia," as the 
States in which all slaves "henceforward shall be 
free." But within those States, even, the city of 
'New Orleans, and thirteen parishes or counties of 
Louisiana, as well as the cities of J^orfolk and Ports- 
mouth, with seven counties in Yirginia, were ex- 
cepted in the proclamation, " and," said the President, 
" for the present left precisely as if this proclamation 
were not issued." And, besides, the States of Mis- 
souri, Kentucky, West Yirginia, Tennessee, Delaware, 
and Maryland, the people whereof were not reckoned 
as in rebellion against the United States, were entirely 
exempt from its operation. There were six slave- 
holding States, three slave-holding cities, and twenty 
slave-holding counties in the Union after January 1, 
1863. 

The following year, 1861, in May, the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church met 
in Philadelphia. The expressions given already from 
a few of the Annual Conferences, as specimen state- 
ments, were fair indications of the almost universal 
sentiment of the Church at that time on the subject 



332 Antislaveky Struggle and Triumph. 

of slavery. The Conference adopted a new rule on 
slavery, by a vote of 207 yeas and 9 nays. The small 
minority of dissenters were delegates from within the 
then slave - holding States of West Yirginia, Mary- 
land, and Kentucky. The delegates from within the 
States of Delaware and Missouri, however, were a 
unit for the new rule, which forbid ''- slave-holding, 
the huying or selling slavesP So that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church alone, of all the Churches in 
America within whose communion slave-holding had 
been allowed, enacted a prohibitory law abolishing 
slavery, even within the States where it was allowed 
to continue by President Lincoln's proclamation of 
1863. 

Moving forward on the same line, in advance of all 
the Churches, the same body, already more sweeping 
in its prohibition of slavery than the civil authorities, 
yet further anticipated the action of the Government 
in a formal address to the President. In this address, 
after saying, '^ We honor you for your proclamation 
of liberty," they add, " We pray that the time may 
S23eedily come when we shall be truly a republican 
and free country, in no part of which, either State or 
Territory, shall slavery be known." And this was 
followed by declarations, in their report on the state 
of the country, in favor of equal rights and compen- 
sation to freedmen, and an amendment to the Con- 
stitution of the United States which should guarantee 
their freedom. The Methodist Episcopal Church in 
18G4 said : " Justice to those who have been enslaved 
requires that in all the privileges of citizenship, as 
well as in all the other ris^hts of a common manhood, 
there shall be no distinction founded on color. . . . 
Provision should be made to give tliose a share in the 



The End — Slavery Yanquisiied. 333 

soil who have cultivated it without recompense, and 
defended it with their blood. . . . We are decidedly 
in favor of such an amendment to the Constitution, 
and such legislation on the part of the States, as shall 
prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude, excej^t for 
crime, throughout all the States and Territories of 
the country." These declarations of the Church 
were soon followed by corresponding national legis- 
lation. 

A bill prohibiting forever slavery in all the terri- 
tory of the United States had passed both Houses of 
Congress, and was approved by the President on 
the 19tli day of June, 1862. Another bill was en- 
acted and approved by the President, on the 25th 
of June, 1864, providing nearly four thousand colored 
cliildren in the national capital with the same rights 
and privileges as white children in the public 
schools. 

A joint resolution, which proposed an amendment 
of the Constitution prohibiting slavery in all the 
States forever, after an extended discussion and vio- 
lent opposition, although successful in the Senate, 
was defeated in the House, in June, 1864. A bill re- 
pealing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and all acts 
and parts of acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves, 
was enacted by Congress, and approved by the Presi- 
dent on the 28th of June, 1864. An amendment to 
the Civil Appropriation Bill, which prohibited the 
coastwise slave-trade forever, became a law, by the 
approval of the President, on the 2d of July, 1864. 

Subsequently the new State of West Virginia 
adopted a system of gradual emancipation. So did 
Missouri, but afterward made it immediate in effect. 
Both became free States without national interference. 



334 Antislaveky Struggle and Triumph. 

The Maryland Convention adopted a free Constitu- 
tion June 24:, 1864. The loyal men of Arkansas and 
Louisiana framed and adopted free Constitutions, and 
they of Tennessee had taken steps in the same direc- 
tion. Kentucky and Delaware stood alone for slavery. 
The climax of extirpation was not reached, and the 
nation swept clean, until the adoption in the House 
of the joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution, on the 29th of December, 1864. 
" On the day of the vote the galleries and the ap- 
proaches thereto were thronged, while senators, 
judges, cabinet officers, and others, crowded upon the 
floor. The uncertainty that still hung over the vote, 
even at the beginning of the roll-call, occasioned the 
most intense and breathless anxiety and suspense. 
And when the result was assured, and the Speaker 
announced that the requisite two-thirds vote (119 to 
56) had been given for the amendment, the pent-up 
feelings of the multitude found expression in the most 
uproarious demonstrations of delight, in which mem- 
bers on the floor, as well as the crowd in the gal- 
leries, took part. After these exhibitions of enthu- 
siasm and gratification had somewhat subsided, Mr. 
Ingersoll, of Illinois, said : ' In honor of this im- 
mortal and sublime event, I move that the House do 
now adjourn.' The motion was carried amid similar 
demonstrations of jubilant and enthusiastic delight. 
The amendment received the signature of the Presi- 
dent, was submitted to the States for ratification, re- 
ceived the vote of the required three fourths of the 
States, and by public proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, 
December 18, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment be- 
came a part of the Constitution of the United States 
of America, and slavery was forever thereafter pro- 



The End — Slavery Yaxquished. 335 

liibited by the organic law of the land." — Henry 
Wilson^ s '' Rise and Fall of the Slave Poioer^'' vol. 
iii, p. 452. 

Note. — 1. G-eneral Conference Reporta, on the State of the Country^ 

1864. 

The Committee have carefully considered the following sub- 
ject * submitted to them by the General Conference, namely : 

^'■Whereas, It is a well-known fact that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was the first to tender its allegiance to the government under 
the Constitution in the days of Washington ; and, whereas^ the fair 
record of the Church has never been tarnished by disloyalty ; and, 
whereas, our ministers and people are deeply in sympathy with the 
government in its efforts to put down rebellion and set the captives 
free ; therefore, 

^^Hesolved, That a committee of five be appointed, w^hose duty it shall 
be to proceed to Washington to present to the President of these 
United States the assurances of our Church, in a suitable address, that 
we are with him in heart and soul in the present struggle for human 
rights and free institutions." 

The Committee, after further consideration of the subject of the 
delegation it is proposed to send with an address to the President of 
the United States, beg leave to report that they have instructed their 
chairman to present for the approval of the General Conference the 
address contemplated in the resolution referred for consideration. 
The Committee still further report that they have nominated as the 
delegation : 

Bishop Edward R. Ames, Rev. George Peck, 

Rev. Joseph Cummings, Rev. Charles Elliott, 

Rev. Granville Moody. 

2. Address to President Lincoln. 

" To His Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United 
States : 

" The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, now 
in session in the city of Philadelphia, representing nearly seven thou- 
sand ministers, and nearly a million of members, mindful of their duty 
as Christian citizens, takes the earliest opportunity to express to you 
the assurance of the loyalty of the Church, her earnest devotion to the 

* Adopted on motion of Thomas C. Golden and K. P. Jervis. 



336 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

interests of the country, and her sympathy with you in the great re- 
sponsibilities of your high position in this trying hour. 

" With exultation we point to the record of our Church as having 
never been tarnished by disloyalty. She was the first of the Churches 
to express, by a deputation of her most distinguished ministers, the 
promise of support to the government in the days of Washington. In 
her articles of religion she has enjoined loyalty as a duty, and has 
ever given to the government her most decided support. 

" In this present struggle for the nation's life many thousands of 
her members, and a large number of her ministers, have rushed to 
arms to maintain the cause of God and humanity. They have sealed 
their devotion to their country with their blood on every battle-field of 
this terrible war. 

" We regard this dreadful scourge now desolating our land and 
wasting the nation's life as the result of a most unnatural, utterly un- 
justifiable rebellion, involving the crime of treason against the best of 
human governments, and sin against God. It required our govern- 
ment to submit to its own dismemberment and destruction, leaving it 
no alternative but to preserve the national integrity by the use of the 
national resources. If the government had failed to use its power to 
preserve the unity of the nation and maintain its authority it would 
have been justly exposed to the wrath of heaven, and to the reproach 
and scorn of the civilized world. 

" Our earnest and constant prayer is that this cruel and wicked 
rebellion may be speedily suppressed ; and we pledge you our hearty 
co-operation in all appropriate means to secure this object. 

" Loyal and hopeful in national adversity, in prosperity thankful, 
we most heartily congratulate you on the glorious victories recently 
gained, and rejoice in the belief that our complete triumph is near. 

" We believe that our national sorrows and calamities have resulted 
in a great degree from our forgetfulness of God and oppression of our 
fellow-men. Chastened by affliction, may the nation humbly repent of 
her sins, lay aside her haughty pride, honor God in all her future legis- 
lation, and render justice to all who have been wronged. 

" We honor you for your proclamations of liberty, and rejoice in all 
the acts of the government designed to secure freedom to the en- 
slaved. 

"We trust that when military usages and necessities shall justify 
interference with established institutions, and the removal of wrongs 
sanctioned by law, the occasion will be improved, not merely to injure 
our foes and increase the national resources, but also as an opportunity 
to recognize our obligations to God, and to honor his law. We pray 



The E^sd — Slavery Ya^'q.ui3}ip:d, 337 

that the time may speedily come when this shall be truly a republican 
and free country, in no part of which, either State or Territory, shall 
slavery be known. 

" The prayers of millions of Christians, with an earnestness never 
manifested for rulers before, daily ascend to heaven that you may be 
endued with all needed wisdom and power. Actuated by the senti- 
ments of the loftiest and purest patriotism, our prayer shall be con- 
tinually for the preservation of our country undivided, for the triumph 
of our cause, and for a permanent peace, gained by sacrifice of no 
moral principles, but founded on the word of God, and securing, in 
righteousness, liberty and equal rights to all. 

" Signed in behalf of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, Joseph Cummings, Chairman. 

"Philadelphia, May 14, 1864." 

3. President LincoMs Reply to the Address. 

*' Gentlemen : In reply to your address allow me to attest the accuracy 
of its historical statements, indorse the sentiments it expresses, and 
thank you in the nation's name for the sure promise it gives, 

" Nobly sustained as the government has been by all the Churches, 
I would utter nothing which might in the least appear invidious against 
any. Yet without this, it may be fairly said that the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, not less devoted than the best, is, by its greater num- 
bers, the most important of all. It is no fault in others that the 
Methodist Church sends more soldiers to the field, more nurses to the 
hospitals, and more prayers to heaven, than any. God bless the Meth- 
odist Church ! Bless all the Churches ! And blessed be God ! who 
in this our great trial giveth us the Churches ! 

*'A. Lincoln." 

22 



338 Ats'tisl AVERY Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTER XXYIIL 

TROPHIES OF THE TRIUMPH. 

THE close of the war, by the success of the Union 
army, gave to the nation substantial trophies of 
the triumph of freedom ; and the overthrow of slav- 
ery by national legislation throughout all the land 
opened the way for our Church to prosecute its legiti- 
mate work in the Southern States, from which it had 
been excluded for more than twenty years. 

During the interim previous to the General Con- 
ference of 1868 the Bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, at their meeting held June 14, 1865, 
in Erie, Pa., were addressed by a minister of one of 
the non-episcopal Methodist bodies, through Bishop 
Simpson. He said : 

Within twent^'-five years past the antislavery agitation cul- 
minated in the Wesleyan Methodist Connection in 1843. The 
pro-shivery principle was embodied in the great secession of 
1844, and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
As a sequence of these facts, and more or less remotely related 
thereto, came the terrible Rebellion. By a singularly happy 
coincidence, now soon occurs the Centenary of American 
Methodism, at a time when the national heart is throbbing 
with gratitude to God for victory, liberty, and union. 
Surely this is the fit time for the fragments of Methodism to 
be gathered into one. And who should initiate a move- 
ment for uuiou ? With either of the smaller Methodist bod- 
ies it would be presumption. With the Methodist Episcopal 
Church it would be magnanimous. — "•jReunion BefendM^'' 
1868, p. 12. 



Tkophies of the Tkiumpit. 330 

The writer had only anticipated tlie purpose of 
the Bishops. Their nnanimons, well-considered action 
was a trophy that signalized the defeat of slavery 
and the dawning of a new era. A series of resolu- 
tions were put upon record and published. They 
said : 

1. As Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we re- 
joice at the overtlirow of the terrible Rebellion which threat- 
ened our national existence ; and we render thanksgiving to 
Almighty God for his signal mercies to our country. 

4. In the removal of the great evil of slavery from among 
us, we consider that the great cause which led to the separa- 
tion from us of both the Wesleyan Methodists of this country 
and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has passed 
away; and we trust the day is not far distant when there 
shall be but one organization, which shall embrace the whole 
Methodist family in the United States. 

5. Especially would we rejoice if there could be a general 
union of all Methodists who agree in doctrine, and who are 
loyal to the general government, and who are opposed to the 
evil of slavery, in the approaching centenary of Methodism, 
which occurs in 1866. 

8. We will occupy, so far as practicable, those fields in the 
Southern States which may be opened to us, and which give 
promise of success, and our mission shall be alike to the 
white and colored population. — " Christian Advocate^'''' June 
29, 1865. 

The extension of its jurisdiction into all the South- 
ern States opened a door for the return of thousands 
of Methodists to the communion of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, from which they had been forcibly 
separated by the Southern secession. And it afforded 
a new field for missionary work by which many other 
thousands were gathered into the Church, so that in 
the general Minutes of the Church for 1876 there 
was reported 16 Annual Conferences, 1,266 traveling 



340 Antislavert Struggle and Triumph. 

preachers, and 210,846 members, including 32,533 
probationers, where it had no members ten years 
before. 

" The Church property owned by colored members 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South, 
consisting of 1,751 plain, comfortable houses of wor- 
ship, valued at $1,793,483, and 162 humble parson- 
ages, valued at $75,105, aggregating $1,868,588."— 
'^Eleventh Annual Report of the FreedmerCs Aid 
Society ^^^ hy Dr. Bust. 

The organization of the Freedmen's Aid Society in 
1866, and the energetic administration thereof in se- 
curing and disbursing more than three quarters of a 
million of dollars in eleven years, for establishing and 
supporting educational institutions in the South, has 
been, perhaps, the most remarkable agency in multi- 
plying trophies of the great trium|)h of freedom. 

From the Eleventh Annual Report of this Society 
the following summary of facts is compiled for the 
current year, 1878. Says Dr. Rust, the veteran and 
indefatigable secretary : 

The Society has aided in the establishment and support of 
chartered institutions at Nashville, Tenn. ; Atlanta, Ga. ; 
Orangeburgh, S. 0. ; New Orleans, La. ; and Holly Springs, 
Miss. Theological schools are organized at Orangeburgh, 
S. C. ; Baltimore, Md., and New Orleans, La. Medical colleges 
are established at Nashville and at New Orleans. Institutions 
are aided which are not chartered, at Greensborough, N. C. ; 
Jacksonville, Fla. ; Waynesborough, Ga. ; La Grange, Ga. ; 
La Teche, La. ; Meridian, Miss. ; Huntsville, Ala. ; Marshall, 
Texas ; Little Rock, Ark. ; and Mason, Tenn. 

In these institutions the number of pupils taught during 
the year is classified as follows: Biblical, 400; Law, 25; Med- 
ical, 50; Collegiate, 75; Academic, 275; Normal, 1,000; In- 
termediate, 510; Primary, 605: total, 2,940. Our teachers 
are unanimous in the judgment that colored pupils learn as 



Trophies of the Tp.irMrii. 341 

rapidly as the white pupils, and that they are far more enthu- 
siastic in their studies. A few, commencing with the al- 
phabet and spelling book, passing through the elementary 
branches, taking Algebra, Geometry, Physiology, Chemistry, 
Latin, Greek, French, and the whole curriculum of colle^i^e 
studies, have graduated with honor and have entered with 
enthusiasm upon the wx^rk of elevating and saving their race. 
By the financial statement submitted it will be seen that we 
have collected and disbursed this year $63,402 85. We have 
sustained in the field seventy teachers. We have now a quar- 
ter of a million dollars' worth of school property in the South. 
One hundred thousand have been taught by those educated 
in our schools. 

Said Bishop Haven at this anniversary meeting, 
after referring to an elegant steel engraving of the 
General Conference of the Church South, which was 
held at Nashville in 1858, the colored servitor of 
which is engraved with water-pitcher in his hand, 
who afterward became a minister of marked ability 
in our Church in New Orleans : 

Turn now to another picture, drawn not yet on a steel plate 
by an engraver's tool, but drawn on the retina of many a 
grateful eye — a picture from life in the same city. It is in 
1878, twenty years exactly after the first assembly had met. 
It is not at the capital, but on a high street in the south part 
of town. A plat of ground, some thousand feet in length and 
several hundred feet deep, is covered by four brick buildings. 
The first is the original mansion where the gentleman of the 
estate resided, and where his servants served him — a spacious 
edifice, with large halls, lofty parlors, and long corridors. 
Next to that is a chapel bearing on its front the honored 
name of Bishop Thomson; next to that a building for recita- 
tion rooms and dormitories; and next to that a tall edifice 
containing a dissecting room, philosophical and library rooms, 
and dormitories. The whole four are the property of the So- 
ciety whose anniversary we are met to celeljrate, and are 
known as the buildings of the Central Tennessee College. lu 
that chapel is gathered a large audience, met to hear ihe 



342 Antislaveky Struggle and Teiumph. 

graduating exercises of the Meliarry Medical School. On the 
platform are seated the leading physicians of the city, who 
have been employed as lecturers to the students. The presi- 
dent of the school, a Northern gentleman, is a graduate of 
the School of Medicine of Vanderbilt University. Three 
young men present their theses on medical subjects and re- 
ceive their diplomas. The Dean gives an address, and these 
doctors of the city utter their congratulations. The crowded 
house, all well-dressed, the stirring music, the delight flash- 
ing from every eye — these are the accessories to the central 
figures — colored doctors receiving the diplomas which give 
them social and professional equality with every other physician 
in the State, receiving them with the approval of distinguished 
white representatives of that most sensitive and scrutinizing 
of professions. 

What a change from the one who was born thrall, and 
expected all his days and all the days of his children and 
children's children to remain thrall, pouring w^ater for his 
owners or their ecclesiastical representatives, and these youth 
going out to minister to the health of the community, the 
accredited equals of every citizen. And all this in twenty 
years! That is the Freedmen's Aid Society of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in one illustration! That is her work, her 
claim, her purpose. The past is prophetic of the future. 

I need not lead you up the slow steps that have reached 
the summit. Slow as they have appeared, they have landed 
us, in less than half a generation, on the loftiest table-lands 
of humanity. That laud may stretch out farther, and may 
slope up higher, but it is the same plateau. The physician 
of to-day may know more than Galen and Hippocrates, but 
he does not rank his profession higher. So the graduate of 
Meharry, a decade hence, may excel in attainments him of 
yesterday, but he can never cease to respect tlie earliest 
students of his school. 

This twenty years should be reduced by one third, if not 
one half. It was not until three years after tlie picture of 
1858 that the opening gun of the new civilization was fired 
in Charleston, and heard round the world. It was not until 
seven years after that the first school was established. That 
school I visited in the fall of 18G6. It was located in a 



Tropiitks of the Triumph. 343 

bnildinf]^ that had been used as a gun factory by the Confed- 
erate forces and confiscated by the national government. 
On rough benches sat rougher people — ^youth, children, men, 
and women — in rags of linsey-woolsey and jeans, patched 
like Joseph's coat, not through pride and plenty, but through 
poverty, bootless and shoeless and stockingless, knowledge- 
less certainly, most would have said brainless. They were 
Israelites without the Egyptian spoils, Israelites in their 
original brick-kiln degradation, Israelites despised by the 
Egyptians, from wiiom they had escaped by other arms than 
their own, and despised by those who had, from their own 
motives of self-preservation, delivered them. There tliey 
sat, croucliing over their primers, spelling with difficulty the 
easiest words, answering stammeringly the simplest questions, 
strong only in the gift of song and the faith of their teachers. 
In twelve years they have passed on and up through pri- 
mary and grammar school, and seminary and college, into 
and out of the professional school, the capstone of culture, 
recognized as such through all the world and all the ages. 
Shall we not exultingiy exclaim. What hath God wrought! 
He hath holpen his servant Israel, To those who sat in dark- 
ness and the shadow of death light hath sprung up — light on 
the inner and the innermost eye ; light for a people that were 
not a people, but are now the people of God; light hencefor- 
ward and forever. 

Equally distinguislied, as one of a new series of 
great events, was the monumental action of the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1868. To unshackle the hmbs of 
a slave is well. To recognize his manhood is better. 
But to repudiate the discrimination made against 
American citizens of African descent hitherto, by ac- 
cording them equality before the law and at the 
ballot-box, is a superlative enfranchisement, which 
has not yet been fully achieved and guaranteed by 
the nation at large. But such was tlie effect of the 
action of the Methodist Episcopal Church assembled 
at Chicago. Ever afterward, before her ecclesiastical 



314: Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 

courts, with the elective franchise, and in their eligi- 
bility to office, no distinctions were allowed on account 
of nationality, color, or previous condition. 

Among many, who were active and influential in 
promoting and securing their logical climax of free- 
dom in the Church, Gilbert Haven was the most pos- 
itive, persistent, and conscientious advocate. As a 
popular journalist generally — but especially as editor 
of " Zion's Herald " — for the years coetaneous with 
and following the war of rebellion, when the great 
national crisis w^as reached, his pen was in perpetual 
motion on behalf of equal and exact justice for the 
African, because he was a man among men, and a 
brother among Christians. 

His first appearance in the General Conference of 
the Church — of which he was, four years afterward, 
chosen one of the honored Bishops — was in 1868, at 
the most opportune period in her history for achiev- 
ing grand triumphs for divine truths and human 
rights. The General Conference of 1861 had author- 
ized the Bishops to organize the preachers of African 
descent into Mission Conferences. And at the Con- 
ference of 1868 their delegates were, after a careful 
discussion and with great unanimity, recognized and 
admitted to membership upon terms of entire equal- 
ity. The vote was two hundred and nine for ad- 
mission, and only twenty-one against it. And this 
minority would probably have been much smaller 
had not the motion to admit included also several 
other Mission Conferences which were represented by 
white preachers. 

The presence of Benjamin Brown, of the Washing- 
ton Conference, and John P. Bowser, his alternate ; 
James Davis, of the Delaware Conference, and An- 



Trophies of the Thiumph. 345 

tliony Eoss, the alternate of Dr. J. P. JN'ewman, of 
the Mississippi Conference, was a token of tlie per- 
manent estabhshment of eqnal ecclesiastical rights. 
And they became, personally, trophies of a trinmph 
of such magnitude as to warrant the record of their 
names in this connection. For they were heralds of 
a new era, which, however, had been foreshadowed 
by the General Conference of the American Wes- 
leyan Connection which met at Cleveland, O., in 184-4, 
and enrolled promptly Lewis Woodson, of African 
descent, who was the superior, in some respects, of 
not a few of his associates. 

Following this precedent, it was further deter- 
mined, unanimously, to extend the usual courtesies 
to ecclesiastical bodies irrespective of color, and a 
telegraphic inquiry from the General Conference of 
the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, then 
in session at Washington City, presented through 
Gilbert Haven, was responded to at once, on motion 
of Daniel Curry, by the following resolution : 

1. That we will cordially welcome a delegation 
from the General Conference (named above) for con- 
sultation and ultimate union of that Church with 
our own. 

The following day. May 19, a reply was received, 
stating that liev. Bishop Singleton T. Jones would 
leave Washington on the 20th as a delegate to the Gen- 
eral Conference at Chicago, in the interest of affiliation 
and union with the Methodist Episcopal Church. On 
the 22d of May Bishop Jones appeared, was intro- 
duced to the body, and addressed them with marked 
ability on the subject of Methodist unity. A com- 
mittee was appointed to consider the subject, and 
afterward a commission of eight, with the Bishops, 



34:6 Antislaveey Steuggle and Triumph. 

was appointed, and instructed " to confer with a like 
commission from the African Methodist Episcopal 
Zion Church for the union of that body with our 
own ; " and also were " empowered to treat with a 
similar commission from any other Methodist Church 
that may desire a like union." 

]^o organic union resulted from this action, but a 
fraternal intercourse followed, which ultimately em- 
braced also the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, whose 
representatives were received and heard on the plat- 
form of the General Conference at Baltimore, in 
1876. At the same session fraternal delegates were 
ordered to be appointed by the Bishops to nine Meth- 
odist bodies in America. (" Journal," 1876, p. 381.) 

The action of the General Conference of 1836, at 
Cincinnati, (see Chapter IX,) which " disapproved, in 
the most unqualified sense, the conduct of the two 
members of the General Conference, who are reported 
to have lectured in this city recently, upon and in 
favor of Modern Abolitionism;" and which also de- 
clared that the Conference was "decidedly opposed 
to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, 
wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and polit- 
ical relation between master and slave, as it exists in 
the slave-holding States of this Union," was brought 
to the attention of the General Conference of 1868, 
at Chicago, by a memorial from Elkton, Maryland, 
which I. Cunningham presented May 9. The matter 
was referred to the Committee on the State of the 
Church, which reported. May 28 : 

Believing that the object sought by the memorial from 
Elkton, Maryland, signed by Rev. L. C. Matlack and fifteen 
of his official members, is just and desirable, we recommend 



Tkopiiies of the Trtumptt. 347 

to this body the adoption of the following resolutions: 
1. That this Conference does not approve the action of the 
General Conference of 1836 in censuring certain of its mem- 
bers for publicly speaking against the great evil of slavery; 
and that we hereby rescind and pronounce void the aforesaid 
preamble and resolutions. 2. That the preceding preamble 
and resolutions be placed on the "Journal of the General Con- 
ference," And, on motion of Gilbert Haven, the Secretary 
was instructed to transmit to the parties concerned, [Rev. 
Samuel Norris and Rev. George Storrs,] if living, and if not 
to their families, certified copies of this action, rescinding 
the action of the General Conference of 1836. 

The resolutions now rescinded and pronounced void 
had consummated a triumph over the Abolitionists 
by a vote of 120 to 14, which remained unchallenged 
for thirty-two years. The reversal of this action by 
almost unanimous consent was a signal trophy of the 
triumph over slavery. Such an instance of official 
renunciation of wrong action, and of the amende 
honoraUe, cannot be found on record in all Christian 
history. It was unqualifiedly doing " works for re- 
pentance," to salvation that needed not to be repented 
of. An equally interesting instance of Annual-Con- 
ference action deserves mention and may fitly be 
given, of a later date. 

The action of the New York Conference in 1838, 
censuring and degrading Paul R. Brown, is recorded 
in the tenth chapter of this history. The cause of 
that action, with its reversal and the complete vindi- 
cation of his career, is found recorded in the Journal 
of that Conference for 1873. It reads thus : 

Whereas^ Our esteemed brother, Paul R. Brown, after forty- 
five years of uninterrupted service in the Christian ministry, 
is about to retire from the effective ranks, we feel this a 
fitting occasion to express our high official esteem of his 



348 AXTISLAYEKY STRUGGLE AXT> TeIUMFII. 

cliaracter as a man, a Christian, and a minister; of his marked 
fidelity and efl&ciency in tl)e discharge of his duty in the pas- 
torate, the presiding eldership, and in the various councils of 
the Church; and especially and emphatically of his noble, 
dignified, unflinching devotion to the great principles of hu- 
man liberty and equality when such devotion was costly; and. 

Whereas, This Conference in 1838, under the influence of 
mistaken judgment, as we now Ijelieve, though with the purest 
intention, did, by vote, censure and publicly reprimand our 
brother for no other cause than his advocacy of antislavery 
sentiments; therefore, 

Resolved, That we rejoice with him in the triumph of the 
principles which he so fearlessly maintained for conscience' 
sake ; and that we hereby revoke the vote of 1838, and honor 
him as one of the pioneers of a holy cause. 

Resolved, That we tender to Brother Brown our profound 
regard, assure him that we shall not forget him in his retire- 
ment, but that we will ever pray that the evening of his days 
may be peaceful and his end triumphant. 

Adopted by a unanimous vote. 

Besides these adjustments on the one hand with the 
antislavery men of the former days, there were others 
in the opposite extreme of the old controversy with 
whom an adjustment seemed desirable. Between the 
two great families of Methodism in America a great 
gulf of non-intercourse had become fixed and appa- 
rently impassable for more than twenty years. With 
the downfall of slavery and the new life of a recon- 
structed E'orth and South following the terrible 
struggle of civil war, that became possible which 
otherwise would have been forever impossible, " for- 
mal fraternity." 

The primary step in that direction had been taken 
by the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, in 1846, by appointing Dr. Lovick 
Pierce a delegate to the General Conference of the 



TKoniiEs OF THE Tkiumph. 349 

Methodist Episcopal Clmrcli, which met in Pittsburgh, 
May 1, 1848, to tender to that body tlieir Cliristian 
regards and sahitations. But Dr. Pierce was not 
received in that caj)acity for tlie alleged reason that 
" there are serious questions and difficulties existing 
between the two bodies," and, therefore, the Confer- 
ence at Pittsburgh did ''not consider it proper at 
present to enter into fraternal relations with the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Personal court- 
esy was extended to Dr. Pierce, which he declined 
to receive ; and departed, with the assurance respect- 
fully made, that the Church he represented "can 
never renew the offer of fraternal relations between 
the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in the 
United States. But the proposition can be renewed 
at any time, either now or hereafter, by the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church." 

The Erie meeting of the Bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in 1865, was the first occasion of 
an expression of desire for friendly relations with the 
Church South, which is already noted at the opening 
of this chapter. That was followed by the Commis- 
sion of 1868, which w^as appointed by the Chicago 
General Conference specifically to treat with the 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, and " with a 
similar commission from any other Methodist Church " 
desiring a union of Methodist Churches. On this 
ground the Board of Bishops, at their meeting in 
Meadville, Pa., April 23, 1869, appointed Bishops 
Morris, Janes, and Simpson, a commission to confer 
with the College of Bishops of the Church South at 
St. Louis, on " the propriety, practicabihty, and 
method of reunion." A communication was made to 
them expressing the opinion, " that should your ap- 



350 Antislavery Struggle axd Triumph. 

proaching General Conference (1870) see proper to 
appoint a similar commission, tliej will be promptly 
met bj our commission, who, we doubt not, will be 
happy to treat with them, and to report the result 
to our next General Conference," (1872.) 

The reply to this embodied a dignified and regret- 
ful reference to the mission of Dr. Pierce, and its 
rejection ; a disclaimer that slavery Vv^as " in any 
proper sense the cause of the separation," which they 
attribute to " certain constructions of the constitu- 
tional power and prerogatives of the General Confer- 
ence, assumed and acted upon, which " were " consid- 
ered oppressive and destructive of the rights of 
the minority;" a suggestion that fraternal feelings 
and relations must first be established between the 
two Churches ; and finally a disclaimer of any author- 
ity to determine " the propriety, practicability, and 
methods of reunion." 

This did not deter our commission, at a meeting 
held at Philadelphia, November 23, 1869, from a 
formal indorsement of the proffer made by our Bish- 
ops ; and the appointment of Bishop Janes and Dr. 
"W. L. Harris a deputation to bear a communication 
to the General Conference of the Church South, (in 
session at Memphis, Tenn., 1870,) which asked them 
to appoint a similar Commission. Their reply was 
in substance " the full indorsement " of the action and 
opinions of their College of Bishoj^s in reply to ours 
at St. Louis — a doubt as to the authority of the Com- 
mission to make proposals of union to the Church 
South — which union, moreover, in their judgment, 
the " true interests of the Church of Christ " did not 
require nor demand. They, however, expressed their 
" sincere desire that the day mav soon come when 



Trophies of the Triumph. 351 

proper Christian sentiments and fraternal relations 
between the two great branches of Northern and 
Southern Methodism shall be permanently estab- 
lished." 

Responsive to this desire our General Conference 
of 1872, at Brooklyn, K. Y., ''Resolved, To appoint 
a delegation, consisting of two ministers and one lay- 
man, to convey our fraternal greetings to the Genci-;d 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Soutli, 
at the next ensuing session," which met in Louisville, 
Ivy., May 6, 1874. Rev. Albert S. Hunt, D.D., 
Rev. Charles H. Fowler, D.D., and General Clinton 
B. Fisk were selected by the BishojDS, and all of them 
were in attendance. 

Their reception was hearty, generous, brotherly. 
A cordial Christian greeting was promptly extended 
to them ; and their addresses vv^ere so wisely con- 
ceived and eloquently uttered as to awaken deep 
emotion and elicit applause, with tears and shouts of 
praise. The Committee on Fraternity at Louisville, 
said : " Their utterances warmed our hearts. Their 
touching allusions to the common heritage of Meth- 
odist history stirred within us precious memories. 
. . . Every transaction and utterance of our past 
history pledges us to regard favorably and to meet 
promptly this initial response to our long-expressed 
desire." And it was responded to by the appoint- 
ment of delegates to bear Christian salutations to the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, which met in Baltimore, May 1, 1876 ; also, 
commissioners to adjust all existing difficulties between 
the two bodies. The delegates were, Lovick Pierce, 
D.D., James A. Duncan, D.D., Landon C. Garland, 
LL.D. The commissioners were : E. H. Meyers, D.D., 



o52 xVxTISLATERY StEUGGLE AND TkTUMPH. 

E. K. Hargrove, D.D. ; Thomas M. Finnev, D.D. ; 
General liobert B. Yancc, and Hon. David Klopton. 

The American centennial year, with its grand 
monumental exhibition and demonstrations, accom- 
panied with universal rejoicings over the prevailing 
peace, prosperity, and unity of the nation, was happily 
the occasion for consummating, officially, formal fra- 
ternity between the Xorth and the South, through 
the representatives, jointly, of more than two million 
three hundred and fifty thousand Methodists, at tlie 
General Conference in Baltimore. 

The addresses of Drs. Duncan and Garland, and the 
communication from Dr. Lovick Pierce, whose ven- 
erable character and loving words achieved as much 
as their eloquent voices, were followed by appropriate 
action, and by the appointment of a commission to 
meet with the commission of the Church South, 
above named. Morris D'C. Crawford, D.D. ; Hon. 
Enoch L. Fancher, LL.D. ; Erasmus Q. Fuller, D.D. ; 
Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, and John P. J^ewman, D.D., 
were appointed the commissioners. 

The climax of these brotherly negotiations was 
reached when, at Cape May, IST. J., May 17, 1876, the 
commissioners of both boards, by a unanimous vote, 
adop>ted the following " Declaration and Basis of Fra- 
ternity " between said Churches, namely : Status of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, and their co-ordinate 
relation as legitimate branches of episcopal Meth- 
odism : 

Each of said Churches is a legitimate branch of Episcopal 
Methodism in the United States, having a common origin in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, organized in 1784. Since 
the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 



Trophies of the Tkiumph. 353 

was consummated, in 1845, by the voluntary exercise of tlie 
right of the Southern Annual Conferences, ministers, and 
members, to adhere to that communion, it has been an evan- 
gelical Church, reared on scriptural foundations, and her min- 
isters and members, with those of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, have constituted one Methodist family, though in 
distinct ecclesiastical connections. 

The triumph, as a great fact, is abundantly vouched 

for by these historic memorials. They belong to a 

new stage of Christian civilization, which will advance 

evermore. They are monumental, and mark the 

opening of the grandest volume of American history. 
23 



354 Antislavery Struggle and Triumph. 



CHAPTEE XXIX. 

A GLANCE AT OTHER CHURCHES. 

THE varied action of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on the subject of slavery for over half a 
century has been under review in these pages. What 
difficulties were encountered before accomplishing the 
work providentially assigned to it, what influences 
were antagonized, what conflicts were endured, and 
what temptations to inaction were continually re- 
sisted, cannot now be fully known. Other Clmrches 
were embarrassed in the same manner. A glance at 
their efforts, and their inaction as well, will more fully 
explain the situation. 

The Protestant Episcopal Church did not allow 
slavery a place among the questions to be dealt with 
by ecclesiastical bodies, l^o testimonies are to be 
found in the proceedings of its General Conventions. 
" She has remained a mute and careless spectator of 
this great conflict," said Hon. John Jay. 

The Baptist Churches recognize no central body 
holding general jurisdiction. Their antislavery testi- 
mony was given by local Churches. It involved no 
great struggle as a denomination ; but a separate Anti- 
shivcry Missionary Board was sustained liberally for 
many years. The Free- Will Baptists refused fellow- 
ship to all slaveholders as early as 1839. Having no 
membership at the South, they had no occasion for an 
antislavery struggle such as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had. 



A Glance at Otiikk CmKciiKs. 355 

The Methodist Protestant Churcli at its ori^aniza- 
tion, in 1830, could not get *' Southern co-operation in 
conventional action until their slave -holding laws 
were as strongly guarded by the constitution against 
the action of all ecclesiastical bodies as the morality of 
the Holy Scriptures." — Bassett, p. 104. Their Gen- 
eral Conference of 1834 took no action on the subject 
of slavery, but in 1838, 1842, 1846, 1850, and 1854, a 
majority vote disclaimed all authority to act thereon, 
and referred it to the Annual Conferences. Earnest 
discussions were had, and a large minority at each 
session sought to secure antislavery action and to ex- 
punge from their Discipline the word " white," which 
qualified and limited the privilege of suffrage, but 
without success. The utmost achieved at any time 
was a declaration, in 1846, " that the holding of slaves 
is, under many circumstances, a sin against God, and 
in such cases should be condemned by the Methodist 
Protestant Church. Nevertheless, it is our opinion 
that under some circumstances it is not sinful." But 
this declaration was defeated in 1854. 

A delegated convention from fifteen IS^orthern 
Annual Conferences was held at Cincinnati, Novem- 
ber, 1857, which memorialized the General Confer- 
ence of 1858, asking antislavery action, stipulating, as 
tlie inevitable alternative, withdrawal from that body. 
Their petition was not granted, and these Conferences 
organized a separate body, which was thoroughly anti- 
slavery in character and action. But no antislavery 
expression has ever been adopted by any General Con- 
ference of the old Methodist Protestant Church, ex- 
cept the very mild utterance of 1846, which was can- 
celed by the vote in 1854, so leaving slavery unim- 
peached. 



356 Antislayery Struggle and Tkiujviph. 

The Presbyterian Church, in the Synod of ^ew 
York and PennsylYania, 1774, took up the subject of 
negro slavery. But they deferred " the affair to the 
next meeting." In 1787 they recommended, " in the 
warmest terms, to every member of the body, and to 
all the Churches and families under their care, to do 
every thing in their power, consistent with the civil 
rights of society, to promote the abolition of slavery." 
This was reaffirmed in 1793. 

The General Assembly in 1795 assured " all the 
Churches under their care that they view with the 
deepest concern any vestiges of slavery which may 
exist in our country," and refer to the deliverances, 
1787 and 1793, as their present views. The Assem- 
bly, in 1815, reaffirm their old testimonies, and add 
that " they consider the buying and selling of slaves 
by way of traffic inconsistent with the spirit of the 
Gospel." And in 1818, after much discussion, the 
system of slavery was condemned, as "inconsistent 
with the law of God, . . . irreconcilable with the 
spirit and j^rinciples of the Gospel of Christ," and a 
" blot on our holy religion ; " and they urged speedy 
efforts "to obtain the complete abolition of slavery 
throughouth Cristendom and the world." 

At Pittsburgh, in 1836, the subject was indefinitely 
postponed by a vote of 154 to 87. Before the next 
action was taken against slavery two Assemblies were 
in operation — the Old School and the New School 
bodies. 

The New School General Assembly in 1839 re- 
ferred the subject to the lower judicatories. In 1840, 
after requesting certain presbyteries to rescind reso- 
lutions which excluded slave-holders from their pul- 
pits and communion tables, the question was indef- 



A Glance at Other CiiuRcnp:s. 357 

initely postponed. In 1843 they did " not think it 
for the edification of the Church to take any action 
on the subject." But in 1846 the system of slavery 
was condemned as " intrinsically unrighteous and op- 
pressive," while slave-holders are yet deemed worthy 
of " ecclesiastical and Christian fellowship." 

In 1849 there were memorials from four synods 
and thirteen presbyteries asking the Assembly to 
" free the Church from all participation and connec- 
tion with slave -holding." They responded by re- 
affirming the testimonies of 1815, 1818, and 1846. 
And in 1850, by a vote of 87 to 16, resolutions were 
adopted deploring the evils of slavery, and declaring 
slave-holding a disciplinary offense, excej)t when " it 
is unavoidable, by the laws of the State, the obliga- 
tion of guardianship, or the demands of humanity." 
The next two years this action was indorsed infor- 
mally ; and in 1853, after condemning the institution 
of slavery as "injurious to the highest and best in- 
terests of all concerned in it," measures were adopted 
for securing the statistics of slavery among their 
Churches. This was never accomplished. 

In 1855 the system was condemned, the intemper- 
ateness of word and action exhibited by its opponents 
was regretted, and antislavery action was recom- 
mended. This was followed in 1856 by a statement 
that the constitutional power of the Assembly was 
limited to reproof, warning, testimony, and recom- 
mending reformation ; which was exercised in 1857 
toward the Presbytery of Lexington, South. They 
had given official notice that many ministers, ruling 
elders, and members there " held slaves from principle 
and of choice, believing it to be, according to the 
Bible, right." The Assembly said : " We do hereby 



358 AXTISLAYERY STRUGGLE AXD TrIUMPH. 

call on that Presbytcrj to review and rectify their 
position. Such doctrines and practices cannot be 
permanently tolerated in the Presbyterian Chnrch." 
After the separation the Old School Assembly, in 

1845, re^^lied to certain memorialists as follows : " The 
question is this, Do the Scriptures teach that the hold- 
ing of slaves without regard to circumstances, is sin, 
the renunciation of which should be made a condition 
of membership in the Church of Christ?" To this 
an extended answer is given, and then summed up 
thus : " The Assembly intend simply to say, that since 
Christ and his insj^ired apostles did not make the 
holding of slaves a bar to communion, we, as a court 
of Christ, have no authority to do so : since they did 
not attempt to remove it from the Church by legis- 
lation, we have no authority to legislate on the sub- 
ject." Adopted : yeas 168, nays 13. As this was 
construed to be a rescinding of the previous testi- 
monies of the Assembly, a disclaimer was adopted in 

1846, and further action was declared not needed. 
This declaration was repeated in 1849, and in 1850 
the subject of slavery was laid on the table until the 
slave-holders' Rebellion was inaugurated. 

At the General Assembly of 1861 there was an 
intense, angry, and lengthy debate on the following 
resolution, in which nothing was said about slavery, 
although it pointed in that direction : ''' Resokied^ 
That in the judgment of this Assembly it is the duty 
of the ministers and Churches under its care to do all 
in their power to promote and perpetuate the integ- 
rity of these United States, and to strengthen, uphold, 
and encourage the Federal Government in the just 
exercise of all its functions under our noble Constitu- 
tion." This was met by a counter resolution, '• That 



A Glance at Other Churches. 359 

the General Assembly think it inexpedient at this 
time to give any formal expression of opinion touch- 
ing the existing crisis, and that consequently the whole 
subject be indefinitely postponed." 

In 1862, however, the "Deliverance" of the As- 
sembly, which was adopted by a vote of 199 to 20, 
declared that "the system that makes, or proposes to 
make, the relation of master and slave hereditary, 
perpetual, and absolute, must be wrong, as it is a 
negation of the principles and precepts of the Gospel, 
and of the very idea of civil liberty and of inalienable 
rights." 

The New School Assembly took its last action, 
prior to the great Rebellion in 1860, by a vote refus- 
ing " to instruct their Church Extension Society not 
to aid any Church that has in its communion one or 
more slave-holders ; " giving as reasons, that no Pres- 
byterian Church was sustaining or fortifying the in- 
stitution of slavery ; and they would not withhold 
from slave-holders the bread of life ; and that no 
instructions were needed by the committee. But 
in 1863 the Assembly, in session at Philadelj^hia, 
adopted a report on the state of the country, pre- 
sented by Albert Barnes, which declared that the 
system of human bondage as practiced in the South 
is in direct violation of human rights and the teach- 
ings of our better natures, therefore they gave the 
strongest support to the President's proclamation. 
And in 1865 the same body unanimously adopted a 
memorial demanding the right of franchise for the 
colored men. 

The Congregationalists of this country, mainly oc- 
cupying the E"ew England States, or other Northern 
States, without any connectional bond, and only indi- 



360 Antislaveey Struggle and Tkiumph. 

rectly implicated in slavery, were yet slow to become 
antislavery in sentiment, and that was without dis- 
ciplinary power, except when adopted by local inde- 
pendent Chnrches. There can be no comparison his- 
torically, therefore, between them and Methodism in 
its struggle and triumph. 

"With the other Churches already noted — of much 
less extended territory and numerical strength, how- 
ever — the comparison of records is largely in favor 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Forty years of 
unqualiiied condemnation of slavery, alternated by 
twenty years of indifference or toleration, is succeed- 
ed by twenty other years of antislavery conflict which 
ultimate in extirpation. Slavery always called a great 
evil — the traffic in slaves ever forbidden — slave-hold- 
ing never allowed in the traveling ministry — and no 
word of apology or vindication of slavery on Scripture 
grounds ever uttered by the General Conference ; it 
was a becoming climax, too long delayed and too 
gradually developed, which that Church reached in 
1864. Note the mile-stones, as indicated by the action 
of successive General Conferences : 

1844. It is the sense of this General Conference that he 
(Bishop Andrew) desist from the exercise of his office so long- 
as this impediment (holding slaves) remains. 

1856. We recommend the Annual Conferences so to amend 
our General Rule on Slavery as to read (forbid) " the buying, 
selling, or holding a human being as a slave." (Yeas, 122; 
nays, 96.) 

1860. We believe that the buying, selling, or holding of 
liuman beings as chattels is contrary to the laws of God and 
nature; inconsistent with the golden rule, and with that rule 
in our Discipline which requires all who desire to remain 
among us to do no liarm, and to avoid evil of every kind. 
We therefore affectionately admonish all our preacheis and 



A Glance at Other Chukches. 301 

people to keep themselves pure from tliis great evil, and to 
seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian means. (Yeas, 
155; nays, 58.) 

We recommend the amendment of the General Rule on 
Slavery, that it shall read (forbid) ''the buying, selling, or 
holding of men, women, or children with an intention to 
enslave them." (Yeas, 138; nays, 74.) 

1864. The proposed New Rule is an expression of a long 
conviction entertained by the majority of the Church — the 
utterance of an edict wdiich conscience dictates and the 
teaching of God's word approves. ... So far as we are con- 
cerned, then, the question. What shall be done for the extir- 
pation of slavery ? shall be answered by a rule uprooting it 
and forbidding it forever. . . . Relying on the promise and 
mercy of God as far as we can, we '•proclaim liberty through- 
out all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." liesolved, by 
the delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General 
Conference assembled, That we recommend the amendment 
of the General Rule on Slavery, so that it shall read (forbid) 
"slave-holding, buying or selling slaves." 

The vote was 207 yeas, and 9 nays. The concur- 
rent vote of the Annual Conferences showed that 
the majority of traveling preachers was equally large 
for the ISTew Kule. One Conference only gave a 
majority against it. Many of the largest Conferences 
were unanimous in its support, and of the others a 
few only gave any negative votes. And the formal 
record of a foregone conclusion was in a few months 
on the Annual Conference Journals, from w^liich it 
was transcribed into the Discipline as one of the laws 
of the General Conference of 1864:. 

The comparative energy and fidelity displayed 
needs no comment. The facts speak plainly and 
fully. The amount of effort required to carry for- 
ward successfully the great revolution of public sen- 
timent in the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 



302 AntislavepwY Struggle and Triumph. 

question of slavery, can only be known to those who 
were witnesses and active agents therein. These 
efforts were begun by a few in 1835, and brought to 
a close in 1860. The culminating point was reached 
in twenty-hve years. Then the position of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church was definitely settled. All 
slave-holding thereafter was prohibited. The prac- 
tice became a fraud. 



Retrospective. 3G3 



CHAPTER XXX. 

RETROSPECTIVE. 

WHAT liatli God wrought ! One hundred years 
ago the American nation, then at the begin- 
ning of its history, was cursed with a system of chat- 
tel slavery which at that time was two hundred years 
old. For with the earliest provincial settlements of 
the sixteenth century in America slavery was prac- 
ticed. And so deeply rooted and wide spread was its 
development during the century just passed, that the 
propagandists of slavery deemed it merely a question 
of time when its prevalence, in practice or toleration, 
would extend to the utmost limits of the continent. 
Between the J^orthern Lakes and the G-ulf of Mexico, 
and from ocean to ocean, the hunters of men were 
coniident that they and their assigns would pursue 
and seize their prey at their own pleasure, and at the 
cost of the national treasury, to the end of time. 

Thirty years ago Rev. Daniel Worth, when travel- 
ing on the Ohio River, was introduced by the captain 
of the boat to a slave-holder, thus : " My friend Mr. 
Worth is an Abolitionist, but a good fellow." " This 
gentleman is one of the best of good slave-holders." 
And they were at once mutually acquainted, and 
engaged in earnest conversation. 

"I should like to know, Mr. Worth," said the slave- 
holder, " if you really believe that slavery will ever 
be abolished ? " " I do most certainly believe that 
slavery must die." " Well, Mr. Worth, I believe that 



364: Antislaveky Stkuggle and Tkiumph. 

slavery will live forever. I have not a doubt of it. 
But I should like to hear one good reason for your 
notion that slavery will ever die." " There is," said 
Mr. AVorth, " one all-sufficient reason why slavery must 
die." ^' Let me hear it, if you please," said the other. 
"It may not satisfy you," he replied; "although with 
me it is the ground of an unwavering faith." Then 
rising to his full height — over six feet, a stalwart 
man of commanding presence, and full of the sublime 
thought that struggled for utterance — he thundered 
in reply, " Sir, slavery must die because God Al- 
mighty lives ! " 

Whatever of human agency was employed, the life 
of God was the pulse of antislavery power. The 
human instrumentality was often marked with the 
weakness of prejudice, and even passion. Not wholly 
unselfish, nor entirely submissive to the divine Will, 
were the purposes of many who, nevertheless, were 
doing God's work. There were, however, many in- 
stances in which self-sacrificing Methodists and oth- 
ers, for conscience' sake, and because they loved their 
neighbor as themselves, had freed their slaves, or 
pleaded for freedom, and became thereby mighty, 
through God, in pulling down this stronghold of 
Satan. An entire generation of these have passed 
from earth, and are unknown to fame, having no 
place in history as recorded by human hands. But 
God has their names in his " Book of Remembrance." 

It was a grand discipline which our fathers passed 
through, although heavy burdens Avere borne by them, 
apparently almost in vain, while slavery grew and 
spread its baneful influences in Church and State. 
And it was a noble strife that a portion of their suc- 
cessors of the present generation bravely sustained 



Retrospective. 365 

against fearful odds for a quarter of a century, which, 
moreover, ciihninated in a final triumph. Yet never 
was it more appropriate than it is now to say, " JSTot 
unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give 
glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake." (Psalm 
cxv. 1.) 

There is a sad and fearful aspect to this great tri- 
umph of freedom. Not for his niercy's sake alone 
was this accomplished. " By terrible things in right- 
eousness wilt thou answer us," is the declaration of 
the psalmist. And God's answer to the reckless in- 
difference, as well as the haughty defiance, exhibited 
toward his poor and toward hinjself, was terrible in- 
deed, in the agencies employed to bear the message 
of his providential will. AVhat might have been, 
is perhaps indicated by the history of West India 
emancipation, and the relation of the English Wes- 
leyans thereto. 

Our American Methodism was too far away from 
the land of Wesley, and too early and too closely 
associated with powerful influences which weakened 
and demoralized its antislavery sentiment, to maintain 
unflinchingly to the bitter end the primitive ground 
on tliat question. Therefore the contrast between 
English Wesley anism and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in their respective relations to Abolitionism, 
which is now briefly recalled. 

Tlie AYesleyan Methodists of England were first 
and foremost and untiring in their co-operation with 
the friends of emancipation. They were a unit in 
their unqualified antagonism to slavery. All their 
chapels w^ere open for antislavery meetings. Every 
gatiiering of the English Conference, for several 
vcars, was the occasion for antislavery declarations. 



366 AxTiSLAVEKY Stkuggle axd Tkiumpii. 

Memorials against slavery and for emancipation were 
universally circulated by tlie AYesleyans, and tens of 
thousands of signatures thereto were forwarded to 
Parliament. The Missionary Secretary and the Pres- 
idents of conferences hesitated not to antagonize the 
movements of the Colonial Government for slavery, 
and held them at bay bravelj^ in behalf of the Wes- 
leyan missionaries among the West India slaves. 

With such a support outside, the Christian states- 
men of Great Britain within the government were 
made strong and valiant. We will look in vain for a 
parallel to Sir Thomas Powell Buxton among our 
American statesmen of a similar period in our his- 
tory. Writing to his daughter on the subject of a 
division in the House of Commons, in the conflict for 
West Indian emancipation, he says : "If ever there 
w^as a subject which occupied our prayers it was this. 
Do you remember how w^e desired that God would 
give me his Spirit in that emergency; how we quoted 
the promise, ' He that lacketh wisdom, let him ask it 
of the Lord, and it shall be given him ; ' and how I 
kept open that passage in the Old Testament in which 
it is said, ' We have no might against this great com- 
pany that Cometh against us, neither know we what 
to do, but our eyes are upon Thee ; ' the Spirit of the 
Lord replying, ' Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason 
of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours, 
but God's.' If you want to see the passage, open my 
Bible, it will turn of itself to the place. I sincerely 
believe that prayer was the cause of division. The 
course w^e took appeared to be right, and we followed 
it blindly."—" The Still Hour;' A. Fheljx^ p. 51. 

Thus, with a solid Wesleyan communion, untiring 
in its zeal, joined with lesser religious forces, led by 



Retrospective. ,3G7 

Bible-reading statesmen, who believed God's wor<l 
and sought to do God's will, it is no marvel that a 
peaceful emancipation was achieved in a few years, 
at the moderate outlay by the British government of 
twenty millions of money. 

Unfortunately for our reputation as a people, and 
unhappily for the cause of humanity and of religion, 
the attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
not like that of the English Wesleyan body, nor were 
our lines of action parallel to theirs. 

Nor indeed were our statesmen of the Bible-read- 
ing class, and prayerfully reliant on the promises of 
God, after the pattern of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton. 
When William H. Seward, as a politician merely, 
suggested in the American Senate the fact that there 
was a higher law than the Constitution of the United 
States, the Christian statesmen of our Senate laughed 
him to scorn, and " the higher law " became a hissing 
and a by-word. And there was no lack of Christian 
ministers, so-called, who rebuked the doctrine of a 
higher law as a fanatical dogma. And w^iat followed ? 

In the absence of the American Churches from 
their rightful original position of practical antag- 
onism to slavery, and by their reverse action, which 
continued for an entire generation ; by the sanction, 
extension, and support of slavery through the national 
government for three quarters of a century of legis- 
lation, the providential necessity was developed for 
an earthquake of rebellion, and the hot thunderbolts 
of war, in order to break loose the shackles which 
Church and State had forged and fastened on four 
million pair of hands. Aye, and more fearful yet 
was the bloody sacrifice that immolated as many lives 
of armed men in battle as there were shackled men 



3 68 AXTISL AVERY STRUGGLE AXD TRirMPH. 

set free ! It is a little thing to add that the treasury 
of the nation was exhausted by a war-debt equal to 
fifteen hundred dollars for each of the four million 
souls set free ! " Terrible things in righteousness " 
were the answers from God ! 

The closing words of this retrospect may seem un- 
historic ; yet they are written. The preceding pages 
may appear delinquent. With a careful endeavor to 
use all the information at command, it may yet seem 
that some persons and many facts have not been no- 
ticed as they deserved. In some instances there was 
a lack of authentic knowledge, notwithstanding s]3e- 
cial efforts to secure it. In many other cases there 
was an entire absence of information. If occasion 
shall arise for a revised edition, opportunity may be 
afforded for supplementing the record in these respects. 

For material aid afforded in compiling this his- 
tory the writer is indebted largely to Thomas W. 
Price, of Philadelphia, whose valuable library and 
personal influence in securing volumes of special 
value from the Mercantile Library Association have 
been at my command. 

Xot less valuable service has been rendered by 
Bishop W. L. Harris in allowing the use of nine 
large folio scrap-books containing the discussion of 
the subject of slavery in the Church for several of 
the most exciting years prior to 1860, which he had 
compiled from the Methodist press and carefully in- 
dexed. I had not known of these folios, nor would it 
have been possible to obtain the information they con- 
tain but for his mentioning and generously offering 
them to me as "just the tiling you need.-' 

The Book Agents at Xew York furnished the 
bound volumes of the "Christian Adv^ocate" for the 



Retkospective. SCJO 

memorable period including 1859-1868, covering the 
close of the conservative and the inauguration of tlie 
radical regime^ which brought the Church to the 
Asburian theory and practice on the subject of 
" African liberty." 

The bound volumes of the " Methodist Quarterly," 
from the library of Dr. Whedon, who maintained the 
position so bravely of the antislavery editor of " an 
antislavery organ of an antislavery Church," were of 
great value, and are used freely. 

This brief retrospect of information furnished, 
with a grateful recognition of its sources, individually 
considered, is preliminary to a recall of the field 
passed over and the struggle participated in per- 
sonally for more than forty years now past. 

The conclusion reached is amazing. The memories 
awakened are thrilling. The contrasts of personal 
positions and personal relations are almost sufficient 
to suggest the suspicion of possible deception. " It is 
as a dream when one awaketh." 

Fifty-four years ago I stood gazing sadly in my 
native city, Baltimore, upon chained gangs of men 
and women, followed by wagons laden with infant 
children, moving off from George Woolfolks' slave 
pens, on Pratt-street, toward the great national mart 
of the domestic slave-trade, Washington, the capital 
of " the land of the free and the home of the brave." 

Forty-four years ago, yet a minor, I was secretary 
of the Wesleyan Antislavery Society of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, at Philadelphia, with eleven 
others ; Henry J. Pepper, president. Soon afterward 
my name was before the Philadelphia Annual Con- 
ference, a candidate for admission, but rejected by a 
unanimous vote, because — secretary of an antislavery 
24 



370 Antislaveky Stkuggle and Teiumph. 

society and " a modern abolitionist." A unanimous 
rejection was repeated the following year by the same 
body for the same reason. This was followed by my 
expulsion from the Local Preachers' Association of 
Philadelphia because unacceptable as an abolitionist ; 
also by a refusal, in 1839, to renew my license to 
preach at the Quarterly Conference of Union Church, 
and by a threat of expulsion afterward from my 
pastor for preaching without a license ; and, finally, 
by fleeing for refuge to Lowell, Massachusetts, under 
the protection and patronage of Orange Scott and the 
New England Conference. This was in 1840. There 
my itinerant life began. 

Twenty-one years were occupied in Xew England, 
Xew York, and the West, in active co-operation with 
the " modern " Abolitionists. The pulpit, the press, 
and the ballot-box were all none too capacious for a 
zeal, perhaps without knowledge at times, which 
owed its main inspiration to the scenes witnessed in 
the streets and fields of Baltimore, joined with the 
thrilling tales of slavery from the lips of a Quaker- 
Methodist mother, made indelible by reading the 
" Genius of Universal Emancipation," edited by 
Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison at 
Baltimore. 

Three years were spent in camp and field life ; first 
as a chaplain for less than a year ; then, in the crisis 
following M'Clellan's Peninsular Campaign, much of 
the following year was spent in giving military ad- 
dresses in the State of Illinois, enrolling volunteers, 
and finally returning to the army a field-ofiicer of 
cavalry. Thenceforward, until after the Kebellion was 
put down, two years were filled up as a subordinate 
officer ; sometimes in command of post, or at the head 



RETROSrKCTIV E. ?, 7 1 

of the regiment, and not unfrequently heading a 
charge of cavah-j in line of battle ; and, finally, as 
Provost-Marshal of St. Lonis city and twenty-two 
counties, with the administration of justice committed 
to my hands, embracing all matters involving the re- 
lations of the soldier with the citizen, or servants and 
their masters, and landlords and soldier families who 
were tenants. The " code " of law to be administered 
was my own sense of equity alone. 

Fifteen other years have elapsed. The preacher 
unanimously rejected two years successively by the 
Philadelphia Conference (in 1837 and 1838) was re- 
ceived by the same body in 186Y with perfect unani- 
mity and hearty greetings when fifty years old. The 
thirteen years following, and reaching to 1880, have 
been S23ent in the pastorate of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and distributed in the States of Pennsyl- 
vania, Maryland, Louisiana, and Delaware. Three 
times I have been allowed to represent my brethren 
in the General Conference. To-day is closed gladly 
the record of an eventful history. " The lines have 
fallen to me in pleasant places. I have a goodly 
heritage. Surely goodness and mercy have followed 
me all the days of my life ; and I shall dwell in the 
house of the Lord forever." 



ANTISLAVERY BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



American Slavery as It Is : Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. 
Small 8vo. New York: American Antislavery Society. 1839. 

Debates of the General Conference of 1844. 8vo. Reported by 
Matlack and Lee. New York: 0. Scott, Publisher. 1845. 

Prison Life and Reflections. One volume, 12mo. By George 
Thompson. Oberlin: Printed by James M. Fitch. 1874. 

Methodism and Slavery. 12mo. By L. C. Matlack. New York: 
Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. 1848. 

Life of Orange Scott. 12mo. By L. C. Matlack. New York : Wes- 
leyan Methodist Book Room ; 0. Prindle, Agent. 1848. 

Sinfulness of American Slavery. Two volumes. By Rev. Charles 
Elliott, D.D. Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt and J. H. Power. 1861. 

The Great Secession. One volume, 8vo. By Rev. Charles Elliott, 
D.D. As above. 

American Slave Code. One volume, 12mo, By William Goodell. 
New York: American and Foreign Antislavery Society. 1853. 

Antislavery Measures of the XXXVIIth and XXXVIIIth Con- 
gresses, (1861-1864.) One volume, 12mo. By Henry Wilson. Bos- 
ton : Walker, Wise & Co. 1864. 

History of Slavery in Massachusetts. By George H. Moore. New 
York : Published by the Appletons. 1866. 

Recollections of our Antislavery Conflict. One volume, 12mo. By 
Samuel J. May. Boston: Fields, Osgood & Co. 1864. 

The Underground Railroad. One volume, 8vo. By William Stell. 
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1872. 

Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. Three volumes, Svo. 
By Henry Wilson. Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. 1872, 1875, 
1877. 



37i Antislaa^eky Bibliography. 

Life of Rev. Adam Crooks. One volume, 12mo. By Mrs. E. Vi. 
Crooks. Syracuse: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. 1875. 

Life and Times of Rev. George Pegler. An Autobiography. 
Syracuse: Published for the Author, at the Wesleyan Book Room. 
18V5. 

Abraham Lincoln and the Abolition of Slavery. One volume, 12mo. 
By Charles Godfrey Leland. New York : G. P. Putnam's Sons. 

William Lloyd Garrison and His Times. One volume, 12mo. By 
Oliter Johnson. Boston : B. B. Russell & Co. 1880. 



INDEX 



Abolition Convention, Baltimore, 200. 

Abolition delegates, 1836, 91. 

Abolitionism condemned, 183G, 101. 

Abolitionism discussed, 183(5, 9;i-99. 

Abolitionism, modern, 80. 

Abolitionists mobbed, 1860, 325. 

Abolitionists outlawed, 84. 

Adams, Charles, 122. 

Adams, John F., 91, 119. 

Address, Bishops', 1856, 227. 

African Methodist Episcopal Church, 
346. 

African Methodist Episcopal Zion 
Church, 345. 

African Preachers' Annual Confer- 
ence, 344. 

African preachers in General Confer- 
ence, 344. 

Albany Convention, political, 202, 

American Antislavery Society organ- 
ized, 80. 

American Antislavery Society para- 
lyzed, 147. 

American Slavery portrayed, 43, 198. 

American Wesleyan Abolition Society, 
146. 

Ames, Bishop, 303. 

Andrew, Bishop, 156, 171, 174. 

Antislavery Bishops, 1800, 65. 

Antislavery memorials, 1840, 134. 

Antislavery press, Methodist, 121. 

Antislavery writers, 122. 

A postolic Church, slavery, 223, 225. 

Appeal, Antislavery, 1835, 87. 

Appeal, Counter, 1835, 87. 

Appeal to the Church, A. Stevens, 307. 

Appeal replied to, D. Curry, 308. 

Asbury and Coke, appeal, 65. 

A.sburv and Sharp-street Churches, 
148. 

Asbury, Bishop, 73. 

\sbury's Journal, 49, 60, 62. 

Baltimore Conference, 55, 82, 103, 184, 

321. 
Bangs, Heman, 209. 
Bangs, Nathan, 92, 122, 131, 158. 
Bapiist Churches, 354. 
Barris, J. S., 117. 

Bascom, H. B., resolution, 1840, 106. 
Bates, Merritt, 119. 
Battelle, G., 241. 
Bennett, P. S., 312. 



[ Bewley's martjTdom, 324. 

Bewley's murderers, 324. 

'• Bill of Sale " from the Almighty, 39. 
I Binney, A., 122. 

Birney, James G., 203. 

Bishops elected, 1836, 100. 

Black River Conference, 330. 

Blakeslee, C, 279. 

" Board " of Bishops to the " College," 
South, 180. 

Bond, Dr., on Abolitionists, 122, 145. 

Bond, Dr., on Maryland politicians, 
150. 

Bond, Dr., on power of General Con- 
ference, 306. 

Bond, Dr., on slavery, 153, 218. 

Bond, Dr., on southern radicals, 153. 

Bonnev, Isaac, 91. 

Border ditflculties, 182, 186. 

Border, revolutionary action, 319. 

Boston Convention, 1843, 151. 

Boston General Conference, 1852, 209. 

Bossuet, on slavery, 28. 

Bourne, George, 199. 

Bowen, Elias, 157. 

Bowser, J. P., 344. 

Boyd, Robert, 115, 122, 153. 

Bridge, J. D., 122. 

British Antislavery Society, 75. 

Brown, Benjamin, 344. 

Brown, Captain John. 324, 326. 

Brown, Paul R., 114, 347. 

Buckingham, Goodsill, 115. 

Buffalo Convention, 205. 

Bunting, Jabez, slavery, 79, 99. 

Cahoon, C. D., 91, 

Canada Confereace, 126. 

Capers, Gabriel, 66. 

Capers, William D., 67, 100, 104, 171. 

Cartwright, Peter, 168. 

Cass, William D., 160. 

Cazenovia Convention, 125. 

Central Ohio Conference, 330. 

Chamberlain, Schuyler, 91. 

Chamberlayne, Israel, 242. 

Chase, Salmon P., 205. 

Christian Advocate, 220. 

Church South, slavery, 183. 

Claremont Convention, 152. 

Clark, D. W., 207, 280, 

Clark, H. J., 217, 223. 

Cl?-k, Laban, 94. 



376 



Index. 



Clay, Henry, estimate of slaves' value, 

■43. 
Clay, Honry, versus Slavery, 1819, 46. 
Colored testimony, 105, 197. 
Coke, Dr., 51. 
Coleman, Seymour, 158, 
'•Collejxe" of Bishops, to the Board 

of, 180. 
Collins, John A., 167, 210, 213. 
Colonel ChiA-ington, 324. 
Columbus, a slave-trader, 26. 
Comfort, Silas, 105, 165. 
Commissioners, South and North, 352. 
Conferences rerSMS Abolitionists, 82, 83. 
Conference trials, 112, 115, 130, 132. 
Congre.eationalists, 359. 
Constitutional amendment, 334. 
Constitutional slave-holding, 299. 
Conservative argument, 122, 125. 
Conservative writers, 122. 
Convention, Southern Delegates, 1844, 

177. 
Coombe, Pennell, 234, 
Crandall, P., 122, 159. 
Crary, B. F., 277, 
Crooks, G, R,, 240. 
Cross, Joseph, 125. 
Crowder, T., 95, 98, 158. 
Cummings, Joseph, 337. 
Cunningham, James, 265. 
Curry, Daniel, 5, 37, 179, 345. 

Davis, James, 344. 

Davis, John, 195. 

Davis, Samuel, letter of, 59. 

Debate on Andrew's case, 155, 171. 

Debate on slavery, 1856, 231-294. 

Declaration of Independence, slavery, 

32. 
Declaration of Southern delegates, 

1844, 174. 
Delegates from Church South, 351. 
Delegates to Church South, 351. 
De Vinne, Daniel, letter of, 56. 
Disbro, W. B., speech, 258. 
'• Discipline " as it is, 184. 
Division proposed, 1844, 152. 
Domestic slave-trade, 45. 
Drake, B. M., 159. 
Dunwoddy, Samuel, 169. 
Durbin, John P., 68, 122, 169, 223. 

Earle, Thomas, 203. 

tarly, John, 92. 

East Baltimore Conference, 321, 328, 

Editors chosen, 1856, 1860, 296, 318, 

Elkton memorial, 346, 

Elliott, Dr., on abolitionists, 95, 135, 

Elliott, Dr., on piracy— slavery, 44. 

Elliott, Dr., on Primitive Church, 223. 

Emory, Bishop, 90, 119. 

Emancipation (Lincoln's) limited, 331. 

English abolitionism, 75-79. 

English AVesleyan preachers, 53. 

Ecclesiastical equal rights, 344, 

Erie Conference-, 116. 

Erie meeting of Bishops, 338, 349, 

Extirpation methods, 1764, 58. 



Ferdinand and Isabella, slave-traders. 

26. 
Fillmore's humiliation, 45, 
Finlev, J. B., 168. 
Fisk, Clinton B., 351. 
Fisk, Wilbin-, 87, 122. 
Floy, James, 112, 189, 291. 
Formal fraternity, 351, 353. 
Fowler, Charles H., 5. 
Fraternal commissions, 353. 
Fraternity declined, 189. 
Freedmen's Aid Society, 340. 
Freedmen's claim on nation, 332. 
Fremont, John C, 206. 
Free Soil party, 205. 
Free-will Baptl^sts, 354. 
Friends, slave-holders, 28. 
Fugitive Slave Law, 46. 
Fugitive Slave Law repealed, 333. 

Gag law, national, 132. " 

Garrettsou, Freeborn, 47. 
Garrison, William Llovd, 86, 200, 201. 
General Conferences, 92, 104, 134, 148, 

155, 178, 189, 209, 227, 306, 331, 343. 
General Rule on Slavery, 58, 71. 
General Rule on Slavery, construction 

asked, 105. 
Genesee Conference, 103, 
Georgia Conference, 103. 
Georgia versus Slave-trade, 30. 
Golden Rule argument. 111. 
Grand Jury, presentments, 187. 
Grant, L., 94. 
Gray, Valentine, 186. 
Great Britain, slave-trafflc, 29, 32. 
Green, W. L. P., 163. 
GrifHth, Alfred, 156. 

Hale, John P., 205, 206. 

Hallowell Convention, 152. 

Hamlin, L. L., 163. 

Harding's case, 156. 

Hargis, J., 187. 

Harrington, Judge, 39. 

Harris, Professor W. L., 222, 227. 

Hatneld, R. M., 5, 312. 

Haven, Bishop G., address, Nashville, 

341. 
Haven, E. 0., 306. 
Haven, Gilbert, 5, 344, 345. 
Hawkins, Sir John, 27. 
Hedding, Bishop, 89, 111, 122, 129, 172. 
Hedrick, ordination refused, 320. 
Hibbard, F. G., 280, 316. 
Hicks, Ellas, 199. 
Hill, Jiimes, 312. 
Hill, Moses, letter to Cyrus Prindle, 

145. 
Hodgson, Francis, 131, 259. 
Hoes, Schuyler, 125. 
Holdich, Dr. J., 312. 
Hollev, Myron, 202. 
Horton, Jotham, 110, 202. 
Hosmer, William, 219, 305. 
Houts, C. H., 212. 
" Humane Society," 1815, 199. 
Hunt, A. S., 331. 



Index. 



377 



Indians enslaved, 36. 
Indian slaves massacred, 27. 
Indictment, Christian Advocate, 187. 
Inskip, John S., 327. 

Janes, Bishop, 180, 349. 
Jetrerson versus Slave-trade,-32. 
Jones, Bishop, 345. 
Jury trial, fugitives, 38. 

Kentucky Conference, organized 1852, 

212. 
Kingsley's Compensation Plan, 213, 

218. 

Lay Conventions, 1860, Baltimore Con- 
ference, 319, 320. 

La Roy Sunderland, 85, 86, 110, 122, 
130. 

Las Casas, 26. 

Lay Union, 308. 

Lee, Luther, 113, 122, 126. 

Legislation for freedom, 333. 

Legislatures versus Abolitionists, 83. 

Levings, Noah, 94. 

Lewis, Judge, Louisiana, 107. 

Liberty Party candidates, 203, 206. 

Light, G. C.,"94. 

Lincoln, Address to, 335. 

Lincoln's Proclamation, 330. 

Lincoln to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 337. 

Literary institutions, South, 340. 

Longstreet, A. B., 161. 

Lord, Rev. W., of the Abolitionists, 98. 

Louisville Convention, 177. 

Lowell Convention, 127. 

Luckey, Samuel, 92, 122. 

Lundy, Benjamin, 199. 

Luther, for slavery, 28. 

Mansfield's, Lord, decision, 35. 
Marshall, Chief Justice, 57. 
Maryland Emancipation, 333. 
Maryland Methodists aroused, 149. 
Mason, Senator, 38. 
Massachusetts slavery, 37. 
Mattlson, Hiram, 238. 
M'Cllntock, John, 288. 
M'Ferrln, J. B., 175. 
Meadville, meeting of Bishops, 349. 
Matthews, Judge, on Slavery, 36. 
Medical graduates, African, 300. 
Memorials (1860) classified, 310. 
Merrill, Abram D., 86. 
Merrill, Joseph A., 91. 
Merrltt, Timothy, 110, 113, 122, 126, 127. 
Methodism, Introduction of, 47. 
Methodist antlslavery bodies, 297. 
Methodist Antlslavery Societies, 85. 
Methodist Episcopal Church, in the 

South, 339. 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 

177. 
Methodist Episcopal Church versm 

Slavery, 58. 
Methodist Protestant Church, 355. 
Michigan Conference, S5. 



Miller, Col. J. P., 39. 

Ministerial and Lay Union, address, 

308. 

Ministerial and Lay Union, reply there- 
to, Curry, 308." 

Missions, West Indies, 75. 

Mob law, 1860, 325. 

Modern Abolitionism, argument, 122, 
125. 

Monroe, Samuel Y., 208, 312. 

Moody, Granville, 312. 

Moravians for slavery, 31. 

Morris, Bishop, 100, 120, 129, 324. 

Murphy, T. C, 312. 

New Chapter, 1860, 311. 

New Chapter, advisory, 314. 

New Chapter, repudiation of, 319. 

New Chapter, vote on, 31.3. 

New England and secession, 152, 160, 

172. 
New England Antlslavery Society, 80. 
New England Conference, 85, 109, 129, 

329. 
New Hampshire Conference, 86, 109, 

129. 
New Jersey Conference, 328. 
Newman, Dr. J. P., 345. 
New Rule, (1839,) New England Con- 
ference, 133. 
New Rule, (1856,) vote on analyzed, 

290. 
New Rule, (1860,> Annual Conference 

vote on, 309, 317. 
New Rule, (I860,) General Conference 

vote on, 312. 
New Rule enacted, 1864, 331. 
New Rules proposed, 309. 
New York Conference, 82, 112, 347. 
New York East Conference, 327, 329. 
New York memorial, 1840, 135. 
New York Mills Convention, 125. 
New York Preachers, versus Fugitive 

Law, 207. 
Norrls, Samuel, 93, 95, 304. 
North Bennet-street Church, 85. 
North Carolina Conference memorial, 

52. 
Northern Advocate, 217, 220. 
Northern Independent, 305. 
North- Western Advocate, 221. 
Nullification, 226, 319. 

Oglethorpe, Governor, 30. 

Ohio Conference, 1835, 82. 

Olln, Stephen, 158. 

Oneida Conference, 111, 184. 

Ordination of colored men, 1800, 73. 

Outlaw system, slavery, 34. 

Pastoral Address, Slavery, 102, 1.37, 314. 
Pastoral Letter, Heddlng and Emory, 

90. 
Pastoral Letter (1800) on Slavery, 65. 
Parkersburgh mob, 187. 
Patriotic Conference action, 327, 330. 
Payne, Robert, 94, 17^ 176. 
Pearne, W. H., 280. 



Index. 



Peck. Gedrpe, 196. 

Peck, Jesse T., 162. 

Penn, William, slave-holder, 28. 

Perkins, Jared, 91, 126. 

Petitions versus Slavery, 91. 

Phelps, A. J., 2M. 

Philadelphia Conference, &3, 117, 184, 

328. 
Phillips, Wendell, 201. 
Pierce, George F., 157, 160. 
Pierce, Lovick, 189, 349. 
Pilcher, H. E., 281. 
Pittsburgh Christian Advocate, 217. 
Pittsburgh Conference, 103, 115. 
" Plan of Separation " null and void, 

178-180. 
Political abolitionism. 198-206. 
Political action. Ohio, 1827, 200. 
Porter, James, 110, 210, 229, 291. 
Porter, J. S., 312. 
"Powers of General Conference,' 

Harris. 300. 
Presbyterian Church, New School, 356- 

359. 
Presbyterian Church, Old School, 356. 
Presiding Elders and Emancipation, 

1826, 60. 
Preston, Benjamin, 117. 
Price, Thomas W., 5, 144, 368. 
Prindle, Cjtus, letter, 118, 122. 
Proclamation, Lincoln's, 330. 
Pro-slavery petitions, 1785, 60. 
Protestant Episcopal Church, 354, 
Providence Conference, 147, 184. 
Puritans, slave-holders, 26. 

Quakers, slave-holders, 28. 

Quarterly meetings versus slavery, 60. 

Quarterly, Methodist, versus slavery, 

303. 
Queen Anne a slave-trader, 29. 
Queen Elizabeth a slave-trader, 27. 

"Rangers," Texas, 324. 

Raymond, Miner, 230, 231, 284. 

Reddy, William, letter of, 1852, 215. 

Reese, A. A., 328. 

Reports, General Conference, on Slav- 
ery, 101, 229, 310, 334. 

Resolutions (General Conference, 1836) 
rescinded, ;J47. 

Restrictive Rule VI, Vote on, 178. 

Rice, William, 5. 

Ross, Anthony, 345. 

Roszel, S. G., 92, 94. 

R«yal African Company, of England, 
29. 

Rules on Slavery, 55, 65, 68, 73. 

Rust, Richard S., 5, 295, 340. 

Sanford, P. P., 95, 153. 
Scott, Bishop, versus Baltimore Con- 
ference, 320, 321. 
Scott, EUhu, 91, 127. 
Scott, Orange, 86, 92, 129. 
Scott, Orani^e, speeches, 95, 98, 136. 
Scott, Orange, trial of, 130, 
Secession, 1779, &4. 



Secession. Antislavery, 138. 

Secession, Southern, 173-181. 

Section on Slavery, Church South, 183. 

Section on Slavery, 1796, 63. 

Section on Slavery, suppressed, 68, 

Sehon, E. W., 168. 

Senators, United States, antislavery, 

205. 
Sewall, Thomas, 312. 
Seward, William H., 201. 
Shaffer, H. N., 312. 
Sharp, Granville, 35. 
Simpson, Bishop, 293. 
Simpson, Dr. M., 179. 
Sinful slave-holding, 217-226. 
Slave-holding preachers, 1788, 55. 
Slavery, section on, 1824-1860, 52, 
Slave territory of the Church, 1856, 228. 
Slave-trade, antiquity of, 25. 
Slave-trade, revenue of, 31, 
Slave-trafflc, tlie Colonies, 29, 
Slicer, Henry, 159. 
Smith, Edward, 115. 
Smith, William A., 101, 135, 166. 
Somerset, the slave, 1772, 35. 
Soule, Bishop, 131, 169. 
South Carolina Conference, 1838, 104. 
South Carolina mob, 67. 
Spain and American Slavery, 1501, 27, 

31. 
Speeches on Slavery, 1856, (General 
Conference : 

Ravmond, 231, 284. 

Coombe, 234. 

Mattison, 238. 

Crooks, 240. 

Battelle, 241, 

Chamberlayne, 242. 

Dr. Thomson, 247. 

Collins, 252. 

Phelps, 254. 

Disbro, 258. 

Clarke, 259. 

Hodgson, 259. 

Dempster, 260. 

Finley, 265. 

Cunningham, 265. 

Stevens, 267. 

Crary, 277. 

Blakeslee, 279. 

Monroe, 280. 

Pilcher, 281. 

Slicer, 281. 

Peck, 282. 

Watson, 288. 

M'Clintock, 288. 
Spencer, John, 158, 
Spicer, Tobias, 92, 
Sprague, Seth, Jun,, 126. 
Stamper, J., 169. 
Statistics of Southern work, 339. 
Steadman, J. J., 196. 
Stevens, A., 220, 303. 
Stevens, Abel, speeches, 190-195. 
Storrs, George, 93, 95. 
Sumner, Charles, 36, 205. 
Sunday-School Advocate versus "Bor- 
der," 302. 



Index. 



379 



Substitutes for Chapter on Slavery, 
1856 : 
Porter's, 291. 
Floy's, 292. 
Stevens', 293. 

Supreme Court, United States, decis- 
ion, 180. 

Territorial slavery prohibited, 333. 
Theses of Abolitionists, 122-125. 
Theses of Conservatives, 123-125. 
"Things as They Are," 1845, 185. 
Thirteenth Amendment, 334. 
Thompson, George, 85, 
Thomson, Bishop, 144. 
Thomson, Dr. E., 1856, 247, 318. 
Tomlinson, Dr., speech, 1848, 190. 
Tracts on Slavery published, 295. 
Troy Conference, 120. 
True, C. K., 112. 
Twombly, J. H., speech, 315. 

Union of Methodists, 349. 
Universal Emancipation, 334. 
Utica Convention, 126. 

Vermont verms Slavery, 39. 
Virgin, Charles, 91. 
Virginia Conference memorial, 52. 
Virginia versus Slave-trade, 1726, 29. 
Virginia Slavery versus Methodism, 

74. 
Voting for freedom, 204, 206. 



Wakeley, J. B., 328. 

Watch-night for freedom, 78. 

Watson, Richard, 75. 

Watson, J. v., 217. 

Waugh, Bishop, 110. 

Wesleyans of England, 77. 

Weslevan Connection of America, 14S, 

297. 
"Wesleyans" of Michigan, 139. 
Wesley versus Slavery, 32, 34, 40, 42. 
Western Christian Advocate, position 

of, 217. 
West Indian Wesleyans, 75. 
Westmoreland petition, 106. 
West Virginia a free State, 333. 
Whedon, D. D., 87, 122, 144, 300, 318. 
Whitetleld a slave-holder, 30. 
Whitson, Thomas, 151. 
"Wholly to refrain," advised, 102. 
Wightman, William, versus Dr. Bond, 

154. 
Winans, William, 98, 157, 168. 
Wise, Daniel, 122, 217, 221, 318. 
Withdi-awal of O. Scott and others, 

141-14;3. 
Woodson, Lewis, 345. 
Worth, Daniel, 363. 

Yeomans, Sir John, 1671, 28. 
Young, Jacob, 257. 

Zion's Herald, position of, 217, 220. 
Zion's Watchman, 121, 131. 



THE END, 



3477-2 



